LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. 
T3S5H 

©Ijaii Gnptjrig^t $0.. 

ShcOf-JBSf 



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, I 



By the Same Author. 



HISTORY OF CHRISTIANITY. On the 
Basis of Prof. Rudolf Sohm. i6mo. Si.oo. 

THE OFFICIAL RECOGNITION OF 
WOMAN IN THE CHURCH. An Histor- 
ical Study. Large i6mo. 15 cents. 



The Higher Criticism 



Mn ©uflittB 



OF 



MODERN BIBLICAL STUDY 



/ 

REV. C. W. RISHELL, A.M., Ph.D. 



WITH AN INTRODUCTION 



PROF. HENRY M. HARMAN, D. D., IX. D. 




CINCINNATI: CRANSTON & CURTS. 

NEW YORK : HUNT & EATON. 

1893- 



f«= 



^>\# 



Copyright 

BY CRANSTON &. CURTS, 

1898. 



PREFACE. 



This book has been written for the purpose 
of furnishing a concise and convenient answer 
to questions frequently asked concerning the 
higher criticism. Its province is not there- 
fore to discuss and weigh, but to report the 
facts of the subject. Nevertheless, the care- 
ful reader will find the principles stated upon 
which the opponents of the critics proceed in 
their refutations. 

For our facts we have gone to the original 
sources, whenever they were accessible. We 
have not, however, referred to all the works 
consulted, but chose those for reference which 
were found most helpful, or which are easiest 
of access. Zockler's " Handbuch der Theo- 
logischen Wissenschaften," Vol. I, and Weiss' 
u Einleitung in das Neue Testament" — the 
former on the entire Bible, the latter in its 
own department — were constantly in use. In 
this connection the writer wishes to express 

3 



4 PREFACE. 

his gratitude to Librarian Whelpley, of the 
Public Library of Cincinnati, and his intelli- 
gent assistants, for their uniform courtesy 
during the preparation of this work. The 
library contains a most excellent collection of 
theological literature. 

Our aim has been to give chief prominence 
to the views of the more conservative critics, 
introducing as deviations therefrom the opin- 
ions of those who are more radical. In con- 
sulting brevity, we found the task a difficult 
one of keeping these views separate. Some 
study on the part of the reader who wishes to 
understand the subject is therefore expected. 

As, in the course of several years, we have 
investigated this subject, we have felt as one 
feels when a dear friend is on trial. And, 
pleased with the concessions his enemies made 
in favor of the excellence of his character, we 
could scarce refrain from shouting aloud our 
rejoicing at his complete vindication by his 
friends. To one who enters upon such a 
course of study with the experience of Bible 
religion in his soul, no attacks aimed at fun- 
damentals have anv force. But it is a constant 



PREFACE. 5 

source of satisfaction to see that the vast ma- 
jority of the critics find nothing in the Bible 
to shake their faith in Jesus Christ or his 
gospel, but only that which confirms. 

Part V is a reproduction of articles con- 
nected with the general subject published in 
the Western Christian Advocate during the 
spring of 1893. This will account for some 
repetition of thought which the reader may 
possibly notice. 

The writer desires to express his thanks to 
the Rev. Professor Henry M. Harman, D. D., 
LL. D., for the Introduction he has written 
to this work. His " Introduction to the Holy 
Scriptures " is a mine of information on every 
phase of higher criticism, which we heartily 
commend to our readers for discussions which 
could not find place here without changing 
the entire scope and purpose of the work. 

CHARLES W. RISHELL. 
Cincinnati, O., June 1, 1893. 



TABLE OF CONTENTS. 



Part I. 

INTRODUCTORY DISCUSSION. 

Page. 

1 i. The Aims of the Higher Critics, 17 

g 2. The Methods of the Higher Critics 23 

2 3. Higher Critical Principles and Assumptions, . . 31 

Part II. 

THE OLD TESTAMENT. 

\ 4. General History of Old Testament Criticism, . . 42 

§ 5. History of Pentateuchal Criticism 47 

\ 6. Present-day Criticism of the Pentateuch, .... 53 

\ 7. The Relative and Absolute Age of the Sources, . 61 
\ 8. Summary of the Argument for the Dates of 

D. and P 66 

£ 9. Criticism of the Prophetical Books 71 

\ 10. The Book of Isaiah, 73 

§11. Jeremiah and Ezekiel, 78 

§12. The Minor Prophets, 80 

\ 13. Zechariah, 82 

'</. 14. The Book of Jonah 85 

\ 15. The Book of Daniel, 86 

i 16. The Psalms, 90 

? 17. The Book of Proverbs, 96 

\ 18. The Book of Job, 101 

7 



8 TABLE OF CONTENTS. 

Page. 
\ 19. Ecclesiastes, 106 

£20. The Song of Solomon no 

£21. The Lamentations of Jeremiah 114 

£22. The Book of Rnth 117 

£23. The Book of Esther, 119 

\2\. The Chronicles 122 

Part III. 

THE NEW TESTAMENT. 
£25. General History of New Testament Criticism, . 129 

\ 26. Present-day New Testament Criticism 135 

2 27. The Synoptic Question, . . . • 137 

^28. The Gospel of Matthew. . 141 

\ 29. The Gospel of Mark 143 

\ 30. The Gospel of Luke 144 

$31. The Acts of the Apostles 148 

i/32. The Gospel of John, 149 

£33. The Johannean Epistles 152 

^34. The Book of Revelation 155 

£35. The Epistle of James 159 

i/36. First and Second Peter 160 

£37. The Epistle of Jude 162 

$38. Galatians, Romans, and 1 and 2 Corinthians, . . 164 

£39. First and Second Thessalouians 169 

£40. Ephesians 171 

\\\. Colossians 172 

$42. Philemon 173 

843. Philippians, 174 

\ 44. The Pastoral Epistles 175 

$45. The Epistle to the Hebrews - . 177 



TABLE OF CONTENTS. 9 

Part IV. 

ESTIMATE OF RESULTS. 

Page. 

#46. Discrimination of Critical Schools — Criticism 
in Germany, England, America, France, Switz- 
erland, and Holland Compared — Value of Crit- 
ical Conclusions — Criticism not to be Roundly 
Condemned — Traditional View not to be Sum- 
marily Pronounced Unscholarly — Critical Con- 
siderations not Sufficient for the Pronounce- 
ment of a Judgment on Critical Questions — 
The Appeal to Christ — The Doctrine of Iner- 
rancy — Of Inspiration — The True Starting- 
point and Goal of all Fruitful Criticism, . . . 181 

Part V. 

IF THE CRITICS ARE RIGHT, WHAT? 

2 47. The Doctrine of Inerrancy, 194 

#48. Inspiration, 200 

§ 49. Date and Authorship of the Books of the Bible, . 207 



INTRODUCTION 



"Higher Criticism" is a phrase used to ex- 
press all investigations respecting the genuineness, 
authenticity, and integrity of ancient literary 
works, especially the various books of the Bible. 
By whom the phrase was first used we can not 
say. Dr. Seiler, in the preface to his "Biblical 
Hermeneutics," published at Erlangen in 1800, 
speaks of "the subtilty of a (so-called) higher 
criticism, which cuts into the very life-blood of 
Christianity." And in the body of his work, in 
speaking of "Introductions," he says: "This 
branch is called by some the higher, historical, or 
real criticism. The investigation of the genuine- 
ness and uncorrupted 'state of the readings is 
special, or common, and verbal criticism." This 
we would now call "textual criticism." 

The higher criticism is not a modern science. 
In the third and second centuries before Christ, 
there was a flourishing school of criticism at Al- 
exandria, which discussed very thoroughly the 
Homeric poems. In this school Zenodotus, Aris- 
tophanes, and Aristarchus were brilliant instruct- 
ors. In the first century before Christ, Dionysius 
of Halicarnassus was pre-eminently distinguished 
for his great critical ability. In the early Chris- 

11 



I 2 INTR OD UCTION. 

tiau Church, Clement and Dion3 T sius of Alexan- 
dria, Origen, Eusebius of Caesarea Palestinae, and 
Jerome were no mean critics. 

But little Biblical criticism existed in the Mid- 
dle Ages. The revival of learning gave a new- 
impulse to literary criticism; and Richard Simon, 
tjorn in France in 1638, may be regarded as the 
founder of modern Biblical criticism; and Rich- 
ard Bentley, of England, who came upon the 
literary stage a little later, formed an epoch in 
the history of general criticism, and has not been 
surpassed. 

Of all the people of the Modern World the 
Germans have most distinguished themselves in 
Biblical and classical literature and criticism. 
But they are too much given to speculation and 
theory, and often show a lack of vigorous common 
sense and knowledge of real life. Their criticism 
often rests upon too narrow a basis, and upon 
minute and uncertain points. They rely too 
much upon internal evidence, and depreciate ex- 
ternal testimony. They are controlled too largely 
by subjective feelings, and excessive confidence in 
their individual opinions, and contempt for others. 
Some of these latter traits are found also in some 
of our American skeptical higher critics. We 
make no objection to higher criticism being ap- 
plied to the Bible. On the contrary, we believe 
in it. But it must embrace the discussion of ex- 
ternal as well as internal evidence. In many 
cases, the only proof of the authorship of a book 



INTRODUCTION. 1 3 

is external evidence. The internal evidence may, 
in fact, amount to nothing at all. On this point 
we need refer only to the authorship of the Let- 
ters of Junius. How has the question of their 
authorship puzzled the learned and critical world ! 

Where external and internal evidence unite in 
proof of authorship, Ave have the highest certainty. 
But one of the most difficult of all problems is to 
determine whether a book is the work of one 
author or more. We may be satisfied that there 
is a unity of plan in it, and of course some ar- 
ranger or architect of the whole ; but how many 
men had a share in the work, we could never tell. 
We may be thoroughly convinced that a house 
was planned by some architect, and that the men 
who built it acted in concert; but how many 
workmen there were would not be manifest. We 
might easily imagine, in some cases, that one man 
designed and built the whole. 

Let us apply these reflections to the Pentateuch. 
If Moses was not the author of this work, who 
was? It certainly bears strong marks of unity, 
and therefore it must have had some arranger or 
editor who gave the material of which it is formed 
its present shape. Whence were the materials 
derived? Did he use previously existing docu- 
ments? If so, how man}'? How far did the 
author or editor make omissions, additions, or al- 
terations in his documents? Who can solve all 
these difficult questions? If there were four orig- 
inal documents, what each contained is as difficult 



14 INTRODUCTION. 

to determine as it is to find the value of four un- 
known quantities from a si?igle algebraical equa- 
tion; in short, we would say, impossible. 

Suppose our Gospels, some time after the apos- 
tolic age, had been molded into one, somewhat 
after the manner of Tatian's Diatessaron, but 
without a single mark to indicate that it was a 
composite, except so far as the work itself might 
show it; and that not a hint had come down to 
us that it had ever existed in any other form than 
as a unit\ r , — can we believe that any set of critics 
would have been able to show that it was a com- 
bination of four documents or Gospels, and at the 
same time to assign to each evangelist what be- 
longs to him? Even if they had been able to some 
extent to disentangle John, they could never have 
ascertained that there are three others, and still 
less have given to each evangelist his due. 

Suppose, some day, there should be applied to 
American history the skeptical principles some- 
times applied to the Bible, what havoc will be 
made of our history! Let us take the following 
language of the Declaration of Independence : 
"We hold these truths to be self-evident — that all 
men are created equal; that they are endowed by 
their Creator with certain unalienable rights ; that 
among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of 
happiness." Let it be borne in mind that when 
this language was used the African slave-trade 
was carried on, not only by the Southern States, 
but also by Massachusetts and other Xew Eng- 



INTR OD UCTION. 1 5 

land States; and African slavery existed in about 
every State of the Confederacy. 

What will the future critics of Germany say of 
this Declaration two thousand years hence? Will 
they not declare it unhistorical f They will so.y 
that it is perfectly absurd that men should appeal 
to the Supreme Ruler of the universe for the rec- 
titude of their intentions, declaring that all men 
are created equal and entitled to liberty, while these 
very rebellious States themselves were enslavers 
of human beings. The critics will assert strongly 
that the Declaration arose — or, at least, was modi- 
fied — in the age of freedom! 

Take another instance of a surprising charac- 
ter. On Thomas Jefferson's monument stands 
the following inscription: ''Author of the Decla- 
ration of American Independence, of the Statute 
of Virginia for Religious Freedom, and Father ot 
the University of Virginia." Not a word about 
his having been President of the United States ! 
What an omission ! Suppose this monument, one 
or two thousand years hence, should be dug up 
among the ruins of America and transported to 
Germany, what a sensation it will make! Will 
they not straightway revise American history, and 
affirm that the author of the Declaration of In- 
dependence and President Jefferson were two dif- 
ferent persons, as established by monumental tes- 
timony? 

The books which compose the Bible have, not 
all the same degree of certainty and strength, or 



1 6 INTR OD UCTION. 

the same inspiration and importance. The}* are 
not like the links in a chain, which is no stronger 
than its weakest link; but they are like witnesses 
in court in favor of some great cause which de- 
pends upon the strongest, not upon the weakest 
witness. The great center of the Bible is Christ, 
whose history is one of the best authenticated in 
the world. He is our Great Citadel, and in pos- 
session of this Impregnable Fortess we need not 
be alarmed if some of the outposts are carried by 
the enemy. But to proceed to the work before us. 

Rev. Dr. RishelFs book is clearly and tersely 
written. His two years' residence in Berlin has 
not vitiated his English style. He gives, in a 
very succinct and fair manner, the views of the 
higher skeptical critics, and occasionally those of 
a more evangelical type. Of course, in a treatise 
of this kind, the strong objections to radical views, 
and the answers that may be given them, do not 
come into view. 

In Parts IV and V he discusses, under the 
heads of "Estimate of Results," and "If the 
Critics are Right, What?" the questions of 
Inspiration and the Inerrancy of the Bible with 
much good sense and moderation. This part of 
the work is especially worthy of being carefully 
read. 

HENRY M. HARMAN. 



THE BIBLE AND HIGHER CRITICISM. 



Part I. 

INTRODUCTORY DISCUSSION. 

§ i. The Aims of the Higher Critics. 

Many are asking, What are the aims of the 
higher critics? What do they hope to accom- 
plish? By what motives are they prompted? 
To answer these questions is the object of this 
section. But it must first be premised that 
the critics are not all led on by the same pur- 
pose. Some are more, others less religiously 
earnest. Some, indeed, have only an historical 
or a literary interest in their work. All claim 
to be free from any conscious bias which could 
influence their conclusions. 

First in order we mention the literary aims 
of the critics. These confine themselves chiefly 
to what is ordinarily called "Introduction," al- 
though they do not exhaust that field. They 

2 17 



1 8 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 

strive to ascertain everything which can be 
known concerning the books of the Bible. They 
ask, By whom, for whom, when, where, under 
what circumstances, and for what purpose, was 
each book of the Bible composed ? They inter- 
rogate tradition, sit in judgment on the opin- 
ions of the Hebrew and Christian fathers as to 
these matters, and demand of the books them- 
selves an account of their origin. To them 
the Bible is a phenomenon, or a composite 
of phenomena, the existence of which is to be 
explained. They ask, Who wrote the Bible? 
just as they would ask, Who wrote the plays 
usually attributed to Shakespeare? They are 
not content with a superficial examination of 
the problems before them, but strive, each ac- 
cording to his ability, to study them broadly, 
profoundly, and exactly. To some portions of 
their work they do not attach any great re- 
ligious significance; yet in some cases they 
have discovered, by their minute research, 
facts of great value in the proper interpreta- 
tion and application of the Word. 

This seems in many respects a perfectly 
harmless object ; but, as we shall see, some 



THE AIMS OF THE HIGHER CRITICS. 1 9 

of the most vital issues connected with the 
entire work of Biblical criticism depend upon 
their conclusions. 

Another class of critics have historical 
rather than literary aims in view. Of this 
number are the oft-mentioned Wellhausen and 
Kuenen. Their literary criticism is not for 
its own sake, but in order to elicit the histor- 
ical facts. To them the Bible is just like any 
other source of historical information. They 
can not accept its statements simply because 
they are found in the Book. If other sources 
contradict, they weigh, sift, and decide, as 
though the Bible had been written without 
any Divine help. There is no presumption 
in its favor drawn from religious considera- 
tions, nor is there any prejudice against it. 
If its utterances are adjudged contradictory, 
no effort is made to harmonize them ; and one 
or all on the subject in question must be re- 
jected. 

From the standpoint of the historian, 
nothing could be more fair; and these critics 
are conscious of no wrong. Their honesty is, 
to themselves, perfectly clear. They naturally 



20 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 

can not understand what objection can be 
made to such a treatment of the Scriptures. 
They are very much inclined to think that 
one who does not look at the Bible as they 
look at it, acts in the interests of his faith or 
his prejudices, and is indifferent to the truth, 
which, however it may contravene all that has 
heretofore been believed, must be accepted 
with unquestioning obedience. 

A third class approach the Bible and its 
study with religious motives. They see in it a 
book of religion, not of history. They can not 
divest themselves of the impression that it 
holds a peculiar position in literature. They 
may apply all the canons of literary and his- 
torical criticism just as the first two of the 
above-mentioned classes; but they do not feel 
that, in so doing, they have exhausted the sig- 
nificance of the Bible. There are elements in 
it which can not be tested except by the heart. 
Some of this class incline decidedly toward 
the conclusions of the purely literary and his- 
torical critics ; others regard them as erroneous 
because reached by inadequate methods. 

Taking the Bible as a book of religion, 



THE AIMS OF THE HIGHER CRITICS. 21 

these critics ask themselves the questions, 
How came the Bible here ? Is it a mere rec- 
ord of human experiences and beliefs ? Were 
these experiences had under the direct provi- 
dence of God ? Were these beliefs wrought in 
the minds of men by the Holy Spirit ? Were 
men inspired to write the things contained in 
the Bible? It is plain that the object of all 
such critics is to sound the depths of the 
Bible's religious value. Its literary and his- 
torical worth sink into insignificance, and is 
prized only as accessory to the embodiment of 
the truth of God. Hence there are those who 
assert perfect and equal inspiration in all parts 
of the Bible, since they can not imagine the 
truth of God in a setting of error ; while others 
affirm that the test of the truth is in those 
parts which have to do with our religious 
life, and declare that if we admit the supposed 
existence of myth and fable, these still contain 
the precious kernel of religious truth. 

The chief source of disturbance to faith 
has arisen from the attempts at reconstruction 
of Bible history. This is not the place to 
speak at length of these attempts ; but many 



22 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 

are convinced on historical grounds of the 
truth of the conclusions of historical investi- 
gation as applied to the Bible who, at the 
same time, feel that these conclusions must 
be maintained in the interest of faith. They 
point out the fact that many educated men 
discover, or think they discover, a conflict be- 
tween certain statements of the Bible and the 
results of investigation relative to the same 
subjects in other fields. To such men the 
solitary testimony of the Bible is not suffi- 
cient to outweigh all other opposing consid- 
erations. It is only the thoroughly religious 
man who will continue his faith in the Bible 
after he finds its utterances contradicted by 
all other authorities. But as these are mat- 
ters which do not pertain to the faith, the 
third class of critics may admit all that the 
first and second classes claim, and thereby 
win them to faith in the religious elements of 
the Book. If they insist that all is inspired 
or none, then the scientific man rejects all. 
If they limit inspiration and inerrancy to 
those parts which center about the religious 
life, they conciliate, and perhaps even win, the 



METHODS OF THE HIGHER CRITICS. 23 

opposer to Christ. Hence, some who would 
take but little interest in these critical ques- 
tions for their own sake, are profoundly inter- 
ested for the sake of the good they may do. 

The principal aims and motives of the 
higher critics have now been set forth in 
brief, and it will be seen that some are actu- 
ated by purely secular, others by purely relig- 
ious motives; still others by a mixture of the 
two, with a preponderance of one or the other. 
Few aim solely at literary or historical ends 
without any mixture of the religious; yet 
with many the latter plays so feeble a part as 
to vitiate all conclusions which conflict with 
faith. The further discussion will lend in- 
creasing light, and still further reveal the aims, 
as the present remarks will aid in understand- 
ing what is to be said as to methods, principles, 
and presumptive results. 

§2. The Methods of the Higher Critics. 

Of necessity, the methods employed corre- 
spond in form to the design of the investi- 
gation. 

The linguistic method is well known, and 



24 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 

will scarcely need illustration. It must be 
confessed that of the correctness of many of 
the conclusions based upon its revealments, 
only those can judge who are themselves ex- 
perts in the sacred languages. Doubtless the 
differences in linguistic style between two 
books attributed to the same author, might 
suggest the necessity of denying the compo- 
sition of one or the other to him. Where dif- 
ferences of style are very wide, the probability 
of different authorship might become so great 
as to overcome a constant and unbroken tra- 
dition. It is not sufficient to say that the 
same writer varies his style according to his 
subject; or, that it undergoes a change with 
advancing age and culture, or in accordance 
with his subjective condition at the time of 
writing. This is all true in the abstract ; but 
in each particular case the critic must settle 
whether the actual differences are to be so ac- 
counted for. As they do not appear in our 
English translation, only the critical student 
can decide how much dependence may be 
placed upon them. 

More uncertain still is that form of the lin- 



METHODS OF THE HIGHER CRITICS. 25 

guistic method which attempts to determine 
the literary dependency or independency of 
one book or author upon another. Here it is 
agreed that the authors are distinct; but cer- 
tain portions of their works are so much alike 
in thought and language that it is easy to 
suppose one must have quoted from the other. 
The question then arises, Which is the bor- 
rower? Upon the answer may depend the 
conclusion as to the authorship of one or the 
other of the so related books; but it is evi- 
dent that any opinion based upon such an in- 
vestigation must be most precarious. The 
danger that the judgment of the investigator 
will be warped by other considerations is 
great, and jeopards, in consequence, all his 
conclusions. On the whole, linguistic consid- 
erations are to be pronounced insufficient. 
And this is indeed tacitly acknowledged by 
the critics, who seek to support arguments 
drawn from this source by others less open to 
suspicion. Illustrations of the use and abuse 
of this method will be found under the dis- 
cussion of the results attained by the higher 
critics. 



26 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 

For historical purposes the principal de- 
pendence is upon a comparison of Biblical 
records with those of other nations. The 
close contact into which Israel was brought 
by its geographical situation with the princi- 
pal nations of antiquity, facilitates such an 
investigation. It must be said that the re- 
sults, thus far, have been strikingly confirm- 
atory of the Biblical record in general. As 
the monuments of Egypt, Babylonia, Assyria, 
and Persia give up their secrets, the student 
will have still more ample material for com- 
parison. This, of course, pertains chiefly to 
the political history of the Jews; but for its 
religious history a similar form of historical 
investigation is employed. A study of the 
religious books of other ancient nations shows 
that, in many of their traditions, they are re- 
markably like those of the Jews. For exam- 
ple, all ancient religions of Asia, Africa, and 
America have a story of the Deluge essen- 
tially like that recorded in Genesis. This 
fact, while it helps to confirm the truth of the 
Biblical record, suggests that it is not a mat- 
ter of revelation. Thus the historian takes 



METHODS OF THE HIGHER CRITICS. 27 

the Bible as one of the sources of history, 
whether political or religious. By this method 
some things in the Bible are rendered more 
probable than they would otherwise be ; while 
others, which find no corroboration, are rather 
made doubtful. 

But the historical method goes further. It 
is not content to take the several accounts of 
the same transaction and harmonize them. 
It does not take for granted that each account 
is true, and that only our ignorance prevents 
us from discovering the connecting link. Each 
account is made to stand on its own merits. 
If it contains statements which seem improb- 
able as compared with other Biblical accounts, 
or with other portions of the same account, 
it is ruled out. In fact, the historian dares 
not do otherwise. Outside the Bible he em- 
ploys this method most rigidly. Should he 
assume that the Bible, because it is his relig- 
ious book, is more perfect than other books, 
he would at once make himself in so far a 
theologian. On historical grounds he may 
or may not be convinced of the accuracy 
of the Scripture record; but as a historian 



28 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 

he dares not admit any intermixture of the- 
ological principle which would detract from 
the strictness of his method. In short, the 
historical method can only see in the Bible 
a " source " of history, not history itself. 
It places it upon a par with other sources, 
and only comes to regard it as having the 
quality of superior trustworthiness after it has 
been tested. It feels at perfect liberty to re- 
ject its historical statements entirely, or to 
correct them according to other sources of 
information. That such a free handling of 
the Book has a tendency to destroy reverence 
for it there can be no doubt; but the critic 
affirms that so far as reverence can be de- 
stroyed by criticism it is unworthy of rever- 
ence. And he declares that, so far from de- 
stroying the historical trustworthiness of the 
Bible in its general statements, his work tends 
directly to confirmation. 

Another method of criticism, less popularly 
known than the two just mentioned, is that 
of Biblical theology. As a method it is pri- 
marily analytical, but it ends with synthesis. 
It takes up the separate books of the Bible, 



METHODS OF THE HIGHER CRITICS. 29 

and studies their theology. It seeks to find 
the fundamental principles of each author, 
and sometimes denies a book its traditional 
authorship because it diverges from the theo- 
logical position of other books from the sup- 
posed author's pen. Having analyzed the 
theological contents of the separate books 
and authors, it proceeds to formulate them 
into a more or less complete system. It dis- 
covers that there is a development of religious 
ideas from Genesis to Revelation. It may 
place the date of the composition of a book 
earlier or later than it would otherwise be 
supposed to be, because its theological stand- 
point is found to be that of the age to which 
it is assigned. Sometimes Biblical theolo- 
gians think they find irreconcilable 'differences 
between the theological positions of the books 
of the Bible, and are inclined to reject from 
the canon such as can not be harmonized. 
Others find all the teachings of the several 
books necessary to a complete system, and 
base the perfection of the canon upon the 
fact that it contains just what it does, with- 
out diminution or increase. This method, as 



30 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 

well as the others, may be made to do service 
in judging of the minutest details of the 
Bible. Anything which conflicts with the in- 
ternal harmony of Scripture teachings must 
give way before it. 

We have mentioned the aims and methods 
in their separate forms for the sake of clear- 
ness ; but, as a matter of fact, they are seldom 
found alone. There may be a ruling motive, 
or method; but others usually accompany, to 
modify or to support the result. It is the 
strength of the cause of the higher critics that 
the application of the various methods usually 
leads to the same conclusions. The literary 
style, the historical setting, and the theological 
position of the latter part of Isaiah are all de- 
clared to be different from those of the former 
part. Nor are many of the critics rigidly either 
literary or historical ; the majority are theolo- 
gians who combine with their religious inter- 
ests the literary and historical methods. 



principles and assumptions. 3 1 

§3. Higher Critical Principles and As- 
sumptions. 

Some of these have been intimated in the 
preceding remarks; yet it may be well to for- 
mulate them here in order to correlate them 
with those not already mentioned. 

First, the assumption that the Bible is to be 
judged by purely literary standards, as any 
other literature. Within limits, this can not 
be disputed ; but when it is made to embrace 
a denial of the element of divine inspiration, 
the theologian at least has a right to object. 
A book whose author or co-author is God 
must be treated with a reverence not due to a 
purely human production ; besides, the very 
assumption is dangerous to the influence of 
the Bible. Here, therefore, is one of the 
principal causes leading to fear of the higher 
critics. One of their first assumptions, if un- 
challenged, would undermine its authority. 

The same may be said of the assumption 
that the historian is at liberty to treat the 
Bible as any other source of history. This 
assumption, however, is objectionable from an 



32 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 

additional point of view. To refer again to 
the Isaian question, the strict historical view 
forbids that the latter part of Isaiah should 
have been written at the same period as the 
former part, since its historical setting is in 
the exilian period. But admit the fact of true 
predictive prophecy, and there is no insuper- 
able difficulty in supposing that the earlier 
Isaiah and the later are identical; but of course 
we do not mean by this that such an admis- 
sion would prove the identity of the two. 

A second assumption is that the books of 
the Bible are separate productions, each of 
which must be studied by itself, and that we 
may not in every case explain the meaning of 
a passage in one book by an utterance on the 
same subject in another book. This principle 
is only modified when two or more books are 
supposed to have been written by one author, 
or when there is a supposed literary depend- 
ence between two books by different authors. 
It is this assumption which produces such 
havoc with the traditional view of the Penta- 
teuch. Three or four authors are supposed to 
be traceable in the so-called books of Moses. 



PRINCIPLES AND ASSUMPTIONS. 33 

They wrote independently of each other, and 
their accounts of the same events have been 
loosely strung together under the name of 
Moses. On this supposition, it is easy to see 
irreconcilable difficulties between the distinct 
narratives. If one author were supposed to 
have written all, we could easily imagine that 
facts known to him, but not committed to 
writing, would explain the variations. Or 
the adherents of the traditional view can take 
refuge in the doctrine of inspiration. God is 
the author of all Scripture, and to each writer 
he simply gave one phase of the truth, to be 
brought out in its strongest possible light. 
Thus apparent contradictions are accounted 
for. We have stated here only the practical 
effect of the two views ; the truth or false- 
hood of the one or of the other we do not at- 
tempt to discuss, since it does not fall within 
the scope of our undertaking. 

Another point concerning which critics 
differ in principle is that of the relation of 
the natural and supernatural. There are few 
who would deny the Divine influence upon the 
soul; but there are many who dispute the 



34 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 

reality of the miraculous elemeut in the Bible. 
All those accounts of special Divine appear- 
ances to men, and of Divine interposition in 
their behalf through physical agencies, are, at 
most, instructive myths. Their only reality is 
in the doctrine they contain that God is some- 
how interested in mankind. The practical ef- 
fect of all this is to remove from the Bible the 
power to make the immediate impression that 
God is near — an impression which, true or 
false, the stories of the miracles chiefly pro- 
duce as we read the Scriptures. If the mira- 
cles are unreal, we can learn from the Bible of 
God's nearness only by inference. But an- 
other exceedingly important consequence is, 
that under this supposition the Bible loses its 
character of reality in general. The miracles 
are related as truth ; if they are not true, then 
much of the Bible is given up to a relation of 
fictitious matter, without any warning to that 
effect. 

Different entirely is the view of those who 
admit the reality of miracles, but who reserve 
the right to judge concerning the trustworthi- 
ness of the record in each case. The former 



PRINCIPLES AND ASSUMPTIONS. 35 

say there is no such thing as a physical mir- 
acle ; the latter say we must not believe 
every miraculous story. The former are 
obliged by their principle to deny the mirac- 
ulous conception of Christ, and his real resur- 
rection and ascension. The latter may admit 
both ; but of the latter many do practically 
obliterate all trace of the miraculous by their 
criticism. This miracle is inherently improba- 
ble; that not necessary, since the event can be 
accounted for on natural principles; the oth- 
ers insufficiently supported by testimony. 
Under this head fall all such questions as 
the Divinity of Christ, the personality of the 
Holy Spirit, the value of prayer, and the pos- 
sibility of regeneration. Those who deny the 
miraculous must deny all these in any form 
which maintains the substance of them. 
Those who admit will emphasize them more 
or less according to their belief in the fre- 
quency of Divine interposition in the affairs of 
men. The same is true of the doctrine of in- 
spiration. All must admit the possibility of 
it who admit the intimate influence of the 
supernatural among men. But the degree and 



36 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 

quantity of it in the Bible is a question to be 
settled by the critical judgment. 

Still another principle which must be men- 
tioned is the doctrine of evolution as applied 
to the Bible and its contents. The evolution- 
ist may be a Theist, although he need not 
even be a Deist. But even theistic evolution 
in Scriptural matters is a far-reaching princi- 
ple. Evolution might account for the pro- 
duction of every book of the Bible, and for 
the formation of the canon, without any Divine 
interference. In that case it would be at most 
deistic. More generally, however, the Bible is 
regarded by evolutionary critics as the record 
of experiences wrought in the hearts and lives 
of men and nations by the purpose of God. 
Under this view, God's providence determined 
each step in the progress of revelation. The 
revelation was not to the intellect, but in 
hearts and lives. Men wrote what they felt 
God had done. God did what was needed ac- 
cording to the then development of mankind, 
or of the chosen people. As man advanced, 
the revelation was made clearer; that is, 
God's dealings corresponded more closely to 



PRINCIPLES AND ASSUMPTIONS. 37 

his own ideal, and less with the imperfect 
condition of man. Such a view may or may 
not admit the reality of a revelation to all 
peoples as truly as to the Jews. Any imper- 
fection of a heathen religion would be ac- 
counted for just as any imperfection in the 
Jewish faith, by the supposition that God was 
doing the best for men under the circum- 
stances. So far as Judaism is concerned, it 
need not follow that the books of the Old 
Testament present as a whole a true picture 
of the actual development. The evolutionist 
supposes that the development of religious 
knowledge and practice kept pace with each 
other. Our Old Testament leaves the im- 
pression that, far in advance and almost once 
for all, God laid down a standard of faith and 
practice, behind which the actual practice of 
the people lagged for centuries. To the evo- 
lutionist this seems highly improbable. Hence 
he attempts to reconstruct the history accord- 
ing to his views; and he claims that he finds 
numberless hints throughout the Scripture in 
support of his theory. On the same principle 
the development of Christianity is accounted 



38 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 

for. The centuries preceding the birth of 
Christ were preparing the way for Christianity 
in Judaism. Christ's very Messianic conscious- 
ness would have been impossible without the 
preceding development of Messianic hope to 
which Christ's view of himself and his mission 
closely conformed. Thus our Lord was not so 
much a fulfillment of the expectations of the 
Jews as portrayed in the Bible as of those who 
lived subsequently. 1 With the scientific diffi- 
culties in the way of such an opinion we have 
here nothing to do, nor can we spend time on the 
practical effects. These depend almost wholly 
upon the thoroughness with which the theistic 
idea pervades the critic. While in fact there 
often is, there need be in it nothing antagonis- 
tic to the fundamental principles of our faith. 2 
It remains merely to state the attitude of 
the critics toward Christianity. That some 
are antagonistic goes without the saying. 
Most, however, hold with greater or less te- 



1 See Thomson, Books which Influenced our Lord. 

2 Abbott's " Evolution of Christianity " is a good illus- 
tration of the evolutionary theory as applied to religion. 
Others which might be mentioned are far more radical. 



PRINCIPLES AND ASSUMPTIONS. 39 

nacity to our holy religion. It may even be 
said that most believe it to be the only true 
religion. Yet some there are who regard it 
as only the best of all, and do not hesitate to 
say that it will undergo transformation to fit 
it fully for its universal mission. 1 Of those 
who adhere to the divine origin of the Bible, 
some justify their critical researches by the 
results to be attained; others declare that 
criticism is a science, the same as any other, 
and may be practiced upon the Bible just as 
upon any other book. The results of their 
investigations have nothing in common with 
their faith, which is entirely unaffected by 
critical inquiry. 2 With such, criticism must 
be a mere pastime — a pleasurable employment 
of the mind. But, perhaps, the majority are 
filled with the idea that all truth is in har- 
mony; and that therefore, in the end, no real 
truth of Christianity can be affected by criti- 
cism, while it may be very useful to sweep 
away any falsehood and superstition to which 



l E. g., Toy, Judaism and Christianity. 
2 E. g., Eibach, " Ueber die wissenschaftliche Behand- 
lung und praktische Benutzung der heiligen Schrift." 



40 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 

men cling. There is great danger, however, 
that our very devotion to truth will induce us 
to employ inadequate means for its universal 
discovery and valuation. If by truth w T e mean 
truth which can be tested by the judgment 
alone, we practically abandon Christian ground. 
Christianity, as a practical concern, can be 
tested only by its proper agencies. These in- 
clude the experiences of the heart. If relig- 
ion has its rights they should be respected. 
The truths which can be subordinated to rea- 
son do not of necessity exhaust the sum of 
truth, since the reason is not the only human 
faculty capable of testing phenomena; nor is 
reason any more reliable in its judgments 
than the heart. That in which the human 
heart can quietly and permanently rest may 
be regarded as true, just as that may be re- 
garded true in which the reason can rest. 
The Christian must search for truth; but he 
may not reject one class of truths in the in- 
terest of another, and especially if by so doing 
he overturns the truths of religion. The 
whole danger arises from the attempt to act 
the part of the scientific investigator without 



PRINCIPLES AND ASSUMPTIONS. 4 1 

recollection of what one has discovered by 
experience. But these imperfections of method 
and purpose are only incidental and tempo- 
rary. They will be corrected as time goes on. 
Christian truth will not permanently nor widely 
suffer, although many individuals may be de- 
prived of its comforts for the time. 



Part II. 

THE OLD TESTAMENT. 

Although criticism is a comparatively 
youthful science, it has already reached many 
conclusions upon which the majority of in- 
vestigators agree. This does not necessarily 
imply that such conclusions are correct; for 
in the republic of truth majorities dare not 
rule. And the critics themselves, who agree 
with each other so completely, would not 
deny that many points are only probably es- 
tablished. The results attained are merely 
held to be in accordance with the best infor- 
mation within our reach. Further discovery 
may make a change of position necessary. 
Hence we speak of the presumptive results 
of higher criticism. We enter first upon 

§4. The General History of Old Testa- 
ment Criticism. 

The way was prepared for the critical 

study of the Old Testament by two French 

42 



OLD TESTAMENT CRITICISM. 43 

scholars — one a Protestant, Ludwig Cappellus 1 
(ti.658); the other a Romanist, Johann Mori- 
nus 2 (ti659), who disputed the belief in the 
continuous and perfect preservation of the 
Masoretic text, and the high age of the He- 
brew punctuation, doctrines generally ac- 
cepted and founded upon Rabbinical tradition. 
But the first epoch-making works on higher 
critical lines were those of Benedict de Spi- 
noza 3 (1*1677) and Richard Simon 4 (ti7i2). 

Spinoza's philosophical standpoint was 
Pantheism, and his conclusions concerning 
Revelation, Miracle, and Prophecy were seri- 
ously affected thereby. According to him the 
task of criticism is to investigate the origin 
of individual books, and the history of the 
Scripture text and canon. Abraham ibn Ezra 
had designated certain portions of the law as 
mysterious. To these Spinoza added others, 
and denied the Mosaic authorship of the 
Pentateuch. By a comparison of Numbers 

1 See Sclinedermaim, Die Controverse cles L. Cappel- 
lus mit den Buxtorfen. 

2 Bxercitationum Biblicarum, etc. 

3 In his Tractatus Theologico-Politicus. 

4 Histoire Critique du Vieux Testament. 



44 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 

xxi, 14, with Exodus xvii, 14, and in Exodus 
xxiv, 4, 7, and Deuteronomy i, 5 ; xxxi, 9, he 
found intimations of the real literary activity 
of Moses. He saw much in Joshua, Judges, 
Samuel, and Kings to indicate a late compo- 
sition for these books. The books from Gen- 
esis to Second Kings, inclusive, form one great 
historical work by a single author, whose pur- 
pose throughout was to teach the words and 
ordinances of Moses. This author was prob- 
ably Ezra; and his work consisted in the col- 
lection of material from different authors, as 
is still observable. But many of the diver- 
gences which would naturally thus arise, Ezra 
could not reconcile. Chronicles he supposed 
to be a very late work, written probably after 
the restoration of the temple under Judas 
Maccabseus. The prophetic books were com- 
posed of fragments collected from various 
sources, and in arrangement have suffered 
many displacements of their natural order. 
Previous to the Maccabaean period there was 
no canon of Holy Scripture. Many of the 
conclusions of this pioneer among higher 
critics find recognition even yet. 



OLD TESTAMENT CRITICISM. 45 

The title of Simon's work was Histoire 
Critique die Vieux Testament (Critical History 
of the Old Testament). Into this work he 
gathered all the results of the labors of his 
predecessors, Cappellus, Morinus, Spinoza, and 
others, many of which he more firmly estab- 
lished by his own researches. His scientific 
and brilliant presentation of the subject lent 
it uncommon interest. Attention was still 
further called to it by its confiscation in 
France, and by the author's keen and prompt 
replies to his literary opponents. He spent 
little time upon the origin of the individual 
books, although he gave some space to the 
proof that in its present form the Pentateuch 
could not have been composed by Moses. 
He developed the theory that in all Oriental 
States there were official historiographers. 
The only difference between the Hebrew his- 
toriographers, who had probably existed since 
Moses, and those of other nations, was that 
the former were inspired, while the latter 
were not. It was the duty of these men to 
write out the important events of their own 
period, and to alter, abbreviate, and enlarge 



46 . THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 

upon the work of their predecessors, as seemed 
to them necessary for the circumstances of 
the time. Ezra, or probably still later writers, 
collected all that had been previously written, 
and out of the material at their command 
wrote our Old Testament; but in so doing 
they allowed themselves much freedom in the 
handling of their sources. 

With these two writers the work of higher 
criticism was fairly initiated. During the early 
part of the eighteenth century, Joh. Gottlob 
Carpzov 1 (ti.757) distinguished himself by 
the learning and comprehensiveness of his 
work in this department, and especially by his 
spirited antagonism to Spinoza and Simon. 
Special mention must also be made of the 
work of Joh. Gottfried Eichhorn (t 1827), who 
was greatly influenced by Spinoza and Simon 
on the one hand, and by Semler and Herder 
on the other; also of Ewald's "History of 
Israel," "Prophets of the Old Covenant," 
and "Poets of the Old Covenant;" of the 
works of Havernick (t 1845) and Keil (t 1888), 
both of which followed the traditional lines ; 

1 Introductio, etc., and Critica Sacra. 



PENTATEUCH AL CRITICISM. 47 

and of the historical-critical labors of De Wette 
(t 1849) and Edouard Reuss (1*1891). 

For many details the reader is referred to 
the following pages. 

§ 5. History of Pentateuchal Criticism. 

Excepting the last eight verses, the Jews 
and the ancient Church held the Pentateuch 
as the work of Moses. The denial of its 
Mosaic authorship by Celsus and other early 
antagonists of Christianity was not founded 
upon critical, but dogmatic reasons. Andreas 
Bodenstein of Carlstadt 1 (t 1541) was the first 
to question on critical grounds the Mosaic 
origin of the Pentateuch. The Pentateuchal 
law he recognized as of Moses, but the thread 
of the narrative and the style excited his sus- 
picion. Andreas Masius 2 (t 1574) believed that 
the Pentateuch in its present form could not 
have been written by Moses, and supported his 
view more especially by the occurrence of 
names not in existence during the time of 
Moses (e.g.) Dan-Laish). The long-cherished 



1 I v ibellus de Canonicis Scripturis. 
2 Kommeutar zu Josua. 



4« THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 

hope that the force of the attacks upon the 
Mosaic origin of the Pentateuch could be 
weakened by the interpolation hypothesis, 
was finally given up by the majority. 

The first to base a systematic and scien- 
tific criticism of the Pentateuch upon a literary 
analysis was Jean Astruc 1 (t 1766), royal phy- 
sician and professor of medicine in Paris. 
Others before him, as Vitringa, had conjectured 
that, in the composition of Genesis, Moses 
had employed older sources. Adopting this 
idea, Astruc asserted that Moses had not even 
worked over these sources, but had merely 
placed them side by side without essential al- 
teration. He also undertook to distinguish 
these sources from one another. This he did 
by taking as his criterion the peculiar use of 
the names of God — in some passages only 
Elohim, in others only Jehovah. Besides the 
two sources thus distinguished, he supposed 
ten others, less frequently employed, and distin- 
guishable by other characteristics. It will be 
noticed that thus far the hand of Moses in 
the composition of Genesis is not denied, al- 

1 Conjectures sur les memoires originaux, etc. 



PENT A TE UCHA L ' CRITICISM. 49 

though he is made only the compiler. Nor 
did Astruc dispute the Mosaic authorship of 
the four additional books. Eichhorn ' showed 
that the passages in Genesis which Astruc dis- 
tinguished by the divine names of Elohim and 
Jehovah were also characterized each by a 
different linguistic style. This discovery is 
still one of the principal supports of the 
critics. He held that the other books of the 
Pentateuch were composed from documents 
written in the time of Moses, some of them 
by Moses himself, others by his contempora- 
ries. The compilation of all the documents 
of which the Pentateuch is composed he is 
disposed to place somewhere between Joshua 
and Samuel. De Wette was the first to dis- 
cover what is now generally held by the 
critics ; namely, that Deuteronomy differs 
wholly in character from the preceding 
books ; and to-day the critics maintain a dis- 
tinct source for Deuteronomy. Frederick 
Bleek 2 was the first to assert that the death 



^inleitung in das A. T. 

2 Einige aphoristische Beitrage zu den Unters. iiber 
den Pent. 



50 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 

of Moses could not have formed the natural 
conclusion of the history of Israel and their 
exodus from Egypt; but that this must in- 
clude also their conquest of Canaan ; and 
hence that Joshua was a part of the same 
work with the other books of the Pentateuch. 
Here, then, we have the idea of the Hexa- 
teuch, so generally accepted at the present 
time. Up to this point it had been assumed 
that the Elohistic and Jehovistic documents 
could only be traced through Genesis, and into 
Exodus as far as chapter vi, 2 ; but, in 183 1, 
Ewald 1 showed that these sources could be 
traced with distinctness through the other 
books of the Pentateuch. In a short time 
the same was asserted also of Joshua. Thus 
another evidence of a Hexateuch instead of a 
Pentateuch was added. Karl David Ilgen 2 
and H. Hupfeld 3 — the former prior to 1834, 
the latter in 1853 — undertook to show that 



Consult his works mentioned above, and TheoJ. 
Studien u. Kritiken, 183 1. 

2 Die Urkunden des Jernsalemischen Tempelarchivs 
in ihrer Urgestalt. 

3 Die Quellen der Genesis u, die Art ihrer Zusam- 
niensetzung, 



PENTATEUCHAL CRITICISM. 5 1 

the Elohim and Jehovah documents were each 
composite in their character, and not the work 
of single authors, as had been assumed. 

If the reader will take the trouble at this 
point to go back over the names mentioned in 
this section, and fix in his mind just what it 
is which each added to the sum of critical 
conclusions, it will greatly facilitate his fur- 
ther study. 

It will be observed, also, that the principal 
questions are as to the extent to which the 
" sources " are traceable. The sources or 
documents themselves were supposed to be 
practically of the age in or immediately sub- 
sequent to that in which Moses lived. But 
we have now to trace the development of 
other new ideas, more startling in their char- 
acter, because they completely overturn all 
our former opinions concerning the date of the 
origin of the Pentateuch. Before doing so, 
however, it may be well to summarize the re- 
sults of the criticism thus far noticed. 1 First, 
the four principal sources of the Hexateuch 

1 For the summary here given we are indebted to 
Professor H. L,. Strack, of Berlin. 



52 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 

(the Pentateuch and Joshua) were supposed 
to be : i. The Priestly Code, otherwise known 
as The First Elohist, The Foundation Docu- 
ment (Grundschrift), The Book of Origins, The 
Annalistic Relator. This document is desig- 
nated by Wellhausen l by the letter "P;" by 
Dillmann as "A." 2. The Second Elohist, 
otherwise called The Younger Elohist, The 
North Israelitish Relator, The Third Relator, 
The Theocratic Relator; lettered "E;" by 
Dillmann, " B." 3. The Jehovist, or Jahvist, 
otherwise called The Additor, The Fourth 
Relator, The Prophetic Relator; lettered "J;" 
by Dillman, " C." 4. The Deuteronomist ; 
lettered "D." Second, that several sections 
of the Pentateuch, although preserved for us 
only in the above-named sources, sprang from 
a period considerably earlier. Among these 
were the Decalogue, The Covenant Book, 
Exodus xx, 22-xxiii, 19, the principal part of 
the song in Exodus xv, and other poetical 
portions. Third, that the Elohistic Docu- 
ments, of which (see above) there were sup- 



1 Wellliausen's designations throughout are preferable, 
and will be named first. 



PRESENT-DAY CRITICISM. 53 

posed to be two, were older than the Jeho- 
vistic. ^ Fourth, that P, B, and J had been 
wrought together prior to D. Essential dif- 
ferences of opinion existed only with refer- 
ence to the manner in which these documents 
were brought into the Pentateuch. The ma- 
jority supposed that one editor had united P, 
B, and J, and that D was afterward added. 
Schrader supposed that the Jahvist had 
added material of his own (J) to P and B, 
and then worked the whole together. 1 Ac- 
cording to some, the Deuteronomist united 
his own work (D) with P, B, J ; but the ma- 
jority were of the opinion that P B J and 
D were brought together by a special editor. 

§ 6. Present-day Criticism of the Pen- 
tateuch. 

The work begun by Astruc had been 
carried to completion. The Pentateuch was 
no longer regarded as originally the work of 
Moses. The documents entering into its 
composition were distinguished the one from 



x In his De Wette's Einleituug. 



54 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 

the other, and Joshua was regarded as or- 
ganically connected with the Pentateuch. 
When this process of investigation was prac- 
tically ended, the thoughts of critics took a 
new turn. They began to compare the con- 
tents of the Pentateuch with the later history, 
and with the prophecies of Israel. Simulta- 
neously, but independently, W. Vatke 1 and 
J. F. L. George 2 began studies of this kind. 
They were both tinged in their historical phi- 
losophy by the principles of Hegel. The 
middle books of the Pentateuch — Exodus, Le- 
viticus, Numbers — were supposed to be charac- 
terized by the prominence given, in the laws 
they contained, to the understanding, while 
the laws of Deuteronomy were distinguished 
as those of the feelings. Their studies led 
them to believe that the former were more 
recent than the latter, whose origin they 
placed in the time of Josiah. Hengstenberg, 3 
Ranke, 4 and others answered their arguments; 



1 Die Religion des Alten Testaiuentes. 

2 Die alteren Jiidischen Feste mit eiiier K'ritik der 



Gesetzgebung des Pentateuchs. 

3 Die Authentic des Pentateuchs. 

4 Untersuchungen iiber den Pentateuch. 



PRESENT-DAY CRITICISM. 55 

their philosophy fell into disrepute, and their 
conclusions seemed destined to be forgotten. 
But even earlier than Vatke and George, 
Bdouard Reuss 1 had carried on similar studies, 
and was led to similar conclusions. As he 
studied the condition of the Jews, as described 
in the historical books of Judges, Samuel, and 
Kings, he thought he discovered a contradic- 
tion between their practice and the laws of 
Moses, and hence concluded that they could 
not have been known during the periods de- 
scribed by those histories. He also taught 
that the prophets of the eighth and seventh 
centuries seemed to know nothing of the 
Mosaic Code. According to him Deuteronomy 
was the oldest part of the law given in the 
Pentateuch, and the prophecy of Ezekiel was 
older than the editing of the Ritual Code and 
the law upon which the final elevation of the 
hierarchy depended. These startling conclu- 
sions, however, received little attention, and 
it remained for others, less original than the 
three pioneers now mentioned, to make them 



1 Reuss was much later in publishing his views than 
some others. See his works mentioned below. 



56 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 

known to the world. An earlier student 
under Professor Reuss was the first to win 
general attention to the new form of criticism. 
K. H. Graf 4 was his name, and to him, rather 
than to Wellhausen, belongs whatever of lit- 
erary honor may attach to the achievement. 
He distinguished the legislation of the middle 
books of the Pentateuch from what he called 
the primitive document, or the Elohistic book 
of history. According to him the middle 
Pentateuchal legislation is found in Exodus 
xii, 1-28, 43-51-xxv-xxxi, xxxv-xl; Levit- 
icus; Numbers i, i-x, 28, xv, xvi, xvii, and 
parts of xviii, xix, xxviii-xxxi, xxxv, 16- 
xxxvi. This, he declared, bears in itself the 
clearest possible evidences of its post-exilic 
composition. Leviticus xvii-xxvi contains a 
book of law composed by Ezekiel, later called 
the Law of Holiness. He was led to these 
conclusions chiefly by his investigations of 
the festivals, the priestly ordinances, and the 
tabernacle. His utterances were, however, 
challenged by Riehm and Noldeke with such 
success that he was compelled to give up his 

4 Die geschichtlicheu Biicher des Alten Testamentes. 



PRESENT-DAY CRITICISM. 57 

position ; but instead of returning to the 
early composition of all, declared all to be 
post-exilic. The investigations of Kayser 1 
confirmed the conclusions of Graf. But if 
Graf first won general attention to what Reuss 
originated, Wellhausen's brilliant presentation 
of the evidences and results of the new view 
won large numbers of adherents. In his 
" Prolegomena to the History of Israel" he 
designated the course of reconstruction neces- 
sary to conform the history of the religion 
and tradition of the Jews to the recent dis- 
coveries. His " Composition of the Hexa- 
teuch" (so far as we know, not translated into 
English) presents the critical reasons for his 
adherence to the new hypothesis. After it 
had thus been popularized, Reuss, the origi- 
nator of the idea, discussed the whole Penta- 
teuchal question in two separate works — one 
in French, V Histoire Sainte et la Lot; the 
other in German, Die Geschichte der heiligen 
Schriften Alien Testaments. 

It may be well here, in the interest of 



*Das vorexilische Buch der Urgeschichte Israels, u" 
seine Erweiterungen. 



58 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 

clearness, to point out the difference between 
the results of criticism as portrayed in § 5 
and those just stated. The former was a crit- 
icism based chiefly on literary grounds; the 
latter, rather on historical. The former asked 
after the literary elements entering into the 
composition of the Pentateuch (Hexateuch); 
the latter inquires after the time of the com- 
position. The former declared that Moses 
Could not have written the Pentateuch in its 
present form; the latter strongly intimates 
that he wrote none of it. The former regards 
it as possible that the Pentateuch was com- 
posed largely of writings left by Moses, and 
not long after Moses' death; the latter places 
the composition of Exodus-Numbers subse- 
quent to the Exile. The former compared 
the language of the various parts of the Pen- 
tateuch with each other, and with Joshua, to 
trace the different literary styles; the latter 
takes up the history and the prophecies, and 
undertakes to prove therefrom that the Penta- 
teuch was unknown until a very late period, 
because no trace of its influence can be found. 
The former sees no reason why the Penta- 



PRESENT-DAY CRITICISM. 59 

teuch should not have been a product of an 
early period ; the latter regards it impossible 
that in their then stage of development the 
Jews should have produced the Pentateuchal 
legislation, and regards it as a possible off- 
spring only of the later age. But the newer 
critical school has, in common with the old, 
the belief in a variety of documents as con- 
stituents of the Pentateuch, and in fact could 
never have come into existence without the 
older criticism. 

The results (presumptive) of present Pen- 
tateuchal criticism may be briefly summarized 
as follows: The first four books are a compi- 
lation from earlier written sources, the num- 
ber of which is not definitely settled, although 
opinions waver between two and three ; Deu- 
teronomy is based upon a still different source; 
the sources distinguishable in the Pentateuch 
are also distinguishable in Joshua, and hence 
could not have been written by Moses; or, in 
other words, a later than Moses wrote not 
only the Pentateuch as we have it, but also 
Joshua. There are ciitics who deny this last 
conclusion, together with the supposed fact 



60 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 

upon which it is based; but we pretend only 
to state here the conclusions generally re- 
ceived. The critics generally deny that Moses 
claims to have written the Pentateuch, al- 
though they do not generally assert that he 
may not have written parts now incorporated 
into it; yet that he wrote any of the princi- 
pal documents of which the Pentateuch is 
formed they deny, since they claim that these 
are traceable through Joshua, which describes 
events subsequent to the death of Moses. At 
best, therefore, the critics can give Moses but 
little credit for literary activity in connection 
with the Pentateuch. Since Deuteronomy is 
regarded by so many critics as having been 
written shortly before the eighteenth year of 
King Josiah (B. C. 621), and since the Deuter- 
onomic source extends through Joshua along 
with the other sources, the composition of the 
Pentateuch is placed of necessity subsequent 
to B. C. 621, although parts of it may be much 
older. The question then arises, What is the 
relative and what the absolute age of the dif- 
ferent sources according to the critics? These 
are questions yet in dispute, and we must 



AGE OF THE SOURCES. 6 1 

therefore content ourselves with a statement 
of the views of the principal investigators. 

§7. The Relative and Absolute Age of 
the Sources. 

The reader who desires to follow all the 
details of criticism must needs pause here, 
and familiarize himself with the names, char- 
acteristics, and extent of the Hexateuchal 
documents. For this purpose we would rec- 
ommend the "Introduction to the Literature 
of the Old Testament," by Samuel R. Driver, 
D. D. An attempt to present all this matter 
here would carry us beyond the design of this 
work. 1 But we may clarify the subject some- 



1 For convenience and by way of illustration we here 
give Driver's summary of the Priest's Code : 

Genesis i, i-ii, 4"; v, 1 28, 30-32; vi, 9-22; vii, 6, 7-9 
(in parts), 11, 13-16™, 18-21, 24; viii, 1, 2", 3 6 ~5, 13°, 14-19; 
ix, 1-17, 28, 29; x, 1-7, 20, 22, 23, 31, 32; xi, 10-27, 31. 32; 
xii, 4*, 5; xiii, 6, n 6 , I2 rt ; xvi, i", 3, 15, 16; xvii; xix, 29; 
xxi, i 6 , 2 6 ~5; xxiii; xxv, 7- n", 12-17, J 9> 2 °> 2 &'\ xxvi, 34, 
35; xxvii, 46 ; xxviii, 1-9; xxix, 24, 29; xxxi, 18 6 ; xxxiii, 
18"; xxxiv, 1, 2 a , 4, 6, 8-10, 13-18, 20-24, 2 5 (partly), 27-29 ; 
xxxv, 9-13, 15, 22^-29; xxxvi (in the main) ; xxxvii, 1, 2 a ; 
xli, 46; xlvi, 6-27 ; xlvii, 5, 6" (lxx), 7-11, 27*, 28 ; xlviii, 
3-6, 7 (?); xlix, i", 28^-33; 1, 12, 13. 

Exodus i, 1-7, 13, 14, 23 6 -25; vi, 2-7, 13, 19, 20", 2i ft , 22; 



62 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 

what by stating that P begins with the first 
word of Genesis and runs through Joshua. 
P contains both Elohistic and Jehovistic ele- 
ments, the question being which is the elder, 
the majority leaning toward the greater age 
of B. Besides the Jehovistic source — which 
begins with Genesis ii, 4 — the Elohistic, the 
Priest's Code, and Deuteronomy, Dillmann 
adds S, the Sinaitic Law. 

It is usually admitted that D is younger 
than J. Hupfeld, Ewald, Knobel, Schrader, 
and Riehm regard P as the oldest documen- 



viii, 5-7, I5 6 -I9; ix, 8-12 ; xii, 1-20, 28, 37", 40-51 ; xiii, 1, 
2, 20; xiv, 1-4, 8, 9, 15-18, 21", 2i e -23, 26, 27«, 2S", 29; xvi, 
1-3,6-24,31-36; xvii, 1"; xix, i, 2 a ; xxiv, 15-18"; xxv, 
i-xxxi, 18"; xxxiv, 29-35; xxxv-xl. 

Leviticus i-xvi ; (xvii-xxvi) ; xxvii. 

Numbers i, i-x, 2S; xiii, 1-17". 21. 25, 26" (to Paran), 
32" ; xiv, I, 2 (iu the main). 5-7, 10, 26-38 (in the main) ; xv ; 
xvi, 1", 2 6 -7 a (7*-n), (16, 17). 18-24. 27 a , 2>2\ 35 (36-40), 41-50; 
xvii-xix; xx, i° (to month), 2, 3*, 6, 12, 13, 22-29; xx ^ 
4" (to Hor), 10, n ; xxii, 1 ; xxv, 6-18; xxvi-xxxi ; xxxii, 
18, 19, 28-32 (with traces in 1-17, 20-27) ! xxxiii-xxxvi. 

Deuteronomy xxxii, 48-52 ; xxxiv, i a , 8, 9. 

Joshua iv, 13, 19; v, 10-12; vii, 1; ix, 15 6 , 17-21; xiii. 
15-32; xiv, 1-5; xv, 1-13, 2S-44, 4S-62; xvi, 4-8; xvii, 
i" (i 6 , 2), 3, 4, 7, 9°, 9 C , 10"; xviii, 1. 11-2S; xix, 1-8, 10-46, 
48, 51 ; xx, 1-3 (except " and unawares "), 6" (to judgment), 
7-9 (cf. lxx) ; xxi, 1-42 (xxii, 9-34). 



AGE OF THE SOURCES. 63 

tary source of the Pentateach, while Dillmann 
regards it as old, though not the oldest. On 
the other hand, P is regarded as the youngest 
portion of the Pentateuch by Graf, Kayser, 
Kuenen, Wellhausen, and Reuss. When we 
consider the contents of P, we discover the 
tremendous significance of the position that 
it was more recently composed than any 
other document of the Pentateuch. As to 
the absolute age of the sources, Noldeke 
holds that P, E, and J belong to the tenth, or, 
more likely still, the ninth century B. C. P is 
not the oldest, but can not be much younger 
than the two others. D was written shortly 
before the reformation under Josiah. Ezekiel 
is dependent upon P. Schrader places P at 
the beginning of David's reign; E, soon after 
the division of the kingdom ; J, added to his 
predecessors, and worked them together be- 
tween 825 and 800. D was composed shortly 
before Josiah's reformation ; and the Deuter- 
onomist continued the history down to 2 Kings 
xxv, 21. The separation of the Pentateuch, 
in its present form, from the other historical 



64 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 

books did not take place until the end of 
the Exile. Dillmann x makes the Hexateuch to 
consist of five documents — E, P, J, D, and S 
(Sinaitic Law). E was written by some one 
from the Northern Kingdom, during the first 
half of the ninth century B. C. J is a Judaic 
document, written not earlier than the middle 
of the eighth century. D was written not 
long before the eighteenth year of Josiah; 
P he places about 800; S is composed of 
portions as old as Moses, and as recent as the 
Exile. Before the return of Ezra, the Penta- 
teuch was separated from Joshua. Ezra gave 
the Pentateuch public recognition in 444. 
Still later scribes worked over certain portions 
of the text, but added no new laws and no 
new historical incidents. Delitzsch, in his 
latest " Commentary on Genesis," does not 
give exact dates for the various documents. 
In 1880 he fixed the sources in the following 
order: J; D (subsequent to Solomon, but prior 
to Isaiah); the law of holiness; P (prior to 
the Exile). Both P and D underwent modifi- 



1 Uber die Kompositiou des Hexateuchs in Commen- 
tar zu Numbers, Deuteronomy, and Joshua. 



AGE OF THE SOURCES. 65 

cations subsequent to their original composi- 
tion. Of the two principal documentary 
forms, it is more probable that the Jehovistic- 
Deuteronomic follows the old Mosaic type 
than the Elohistic. P is younger than J. 
The processes by which the Pentateuch was 
brought into its present form continued until 
after the post-exilian period. Ezra, in 444, 
probably read only P in the presence of the 
people. These are very important conces- 
sions, and bring Delitzsch almost over to the 
side of Wellhausen, 1 who places J in the 
period of the prophets and kings who preceded 
the dissolution of the two kingdoms. E is 
younger, and E and J were later united into 
EJ. D was composed in the period in which 
it was discovered. The principal part of Le- 
viticus xvii-xxvi was composed during the 
Exile, subsequent to Ezekiel. P is not the 
product of one author, but is the result of la- 
bors extending through and beyond the Exile. 
Only a careful, protracted, and painstaking 
study of these views as to the relative and 
absolute age of the sources of the Pentateuch 

1 See mention of his works above. 
5 



66 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 

will enable the reader to judge which is more 
and which less radical. In fact, they are all 
so much at variance with traditional opinion 
as to leave but little choice between them. 
All make the earliest sources, with but few 
unimportant exceptions, the product of a 
comparatively late age. All deny the author- 
ship of the Pentateuch to Moses; and this is 
the position of most other critics of Germany 
and England. Almost without exception, they 
believe in the Hexateuch ; and some even 
trace the Pentateuchal sources beyond Joshua, 
into Judges. 

§8. Summary of the Argument for the 
Date of D and P. 1 

Intimations have been already given, but 
it will be better to bring all the arguments 
together here in brief. We begin with the 
generally accepted theory of 

DEUTERONOMY. 

The theory is that this book was written 
later than the sources J, E. This is supported 



1 Compare Driver's Introduction and Briggs's Higher 
Criticism of the Hexateuch, 



SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT. 67 

on the ground that the legislation of Deuter- 
onomy presupposes a more highly developed 
civil organization than JE. The historical 
books, in perfect accord with the foregoing 
fact, give evidence that Deuteronomy was not 
composed until after the establishment of the 
monarchy. Deuteronomy forbids the offering 
of sacrifice except at a single fixed place ; 
while in Exodus xx, 24, many places of wor- 
ship are implied. Now, in Joshua and First 
and Second Samuel, the practice seems to have 
been in accord with JE, and in conflict with 
Deuteronomy. (Joshua xxiv, i, 26; 1 Sam. 
vii, Qf., 17; ix, 12-14; x, 3, 5, 8; xi, 15; 
xiv, 35 ; xx, 6; 2 Sam. xv, 12, 32.) According 
to 2 Kings xxii, xxiii, Deuteronomy must 
have been in existence as early as the 
eighteenth year of King Josiah (B. C. 621). 
That it is not much earlier, the critics main- 
tain on the ground that the law of the king- 
dom (Deut. xvii, 14 ff.) seems to have been in- 
fluenced by facts of Solomon's reign ; that, 
while Judges-Kings make no mention of the 
worship of the " host of heaven," although de- 
scribing various other forms of idolatry, Deu- 



68 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 

teronomy presupposes its practice ; that while 
the earlier prophets — such as Amos, Hosea, and 
i Isaiah — appear not to be influenced by Deu- 
teronomy, Jeremiah, and other later prophets 
exhibit marked traces of the book; that the 
theology of Deuteronomy is more advanced 
than could be expected in the early history of 
Israel, while it approaches more nearly that 
of Jeremiah and Ezekiel. Yet Deuteronomy 
must not be regarded as a forgery, since 
Moses does not profess to be its author, 
much of its matter is very ancient, and the 
book is only an adaptation of older legislation 
in the light of prophetic teaching. 

ARGUMENTS AS TO THE PRIEST'S CODE. 

The literature of the period prior to the 
Exile shows no trace of the legislation of P. 
In P, the place of sacrifice is strictly limited ; 
in Judges and Samuel it is not so. In P, 
only priests may offer sacrifice ; in Judges 
and Samuel, laymen offer, without any protest 
even from such men as Samuel and David. 
In P, the arrangements for the care of the ark 
are elaborate ; in Samuel they are very sim- 



SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT. 69 

pie. According to P, the ark could never 
have been taken into battle as in 1 Samuel 
i-iii. When the ark was restored to Kirjath- 
Jearim, it was not in the hands of the persons 
P prescribes as its exclusive protectors. So 
also, when David removed it to Zion. (Com- 
pare 2 Sam. vi, with Num. iii, 41; iv, 1-15). 
Further, Deuteronomy seems to know nothing 
of P. Had P been in existence when D wrote, 
he must have made references to it. But while 
Deuteronomy commands the centralization of 
worship, P assumes that such is already the 
case. In Deuteronomy, any man of the tribe 
of Levi may exercise the right to sacrifice, if 
he live at the central place of worship ; in P, 
only the sons of Aaron may exercise this right ; 
and, in all particulars, P shows greater de- 
velopment than Deuteronomy, and hence ap- 
pears to be later. 

That P is also later than Bzekiel, at least 
in some of its parts, is also maintained by the 
extreme critical school. They claim that, 
while P excluded all except sons of Aaron 
from priestly rights, Ezekiel assumes (chapter 
xliv, 13) that all Levites had exercised these 



70 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 

privileges. Ezekiel now commands that only 
the sons of Zadok, who alone had not idola- 
trously worshiped at the high places, should 
be clothed with the office of priests. Had he 
known of P, he would not have reduced all 
other Levites after admitting that they had 
lawfully been priests. Rather he would have 
pointed to the provisions of P as showing 
that only the sons of Aaron could exercise 
priestly rights. Besides, as Ezekiel's regula- 
tions (chapters xl-xlviii) are more elaborate 
than those of Deuteronomy, so P is more elabo- 
rate than Ezekiel, showing that the order of age 
is Deuteronomy, Ezekiel, and P. The final ar- 
gument is from the more pure conception of 
God, and the generally evident marks of a 
higher stage of culture, and freedom from 
primitive conceptions in P. 

But as Deuteronomy is not supposed to 
have been an invention of the age of Josiah, 
so P is, though a late composition, not in all 
its parts equally late. It allows the great 
antiquity of the principal parts of the Israel- 
itish ritual. In fact, P is really in the main 
a codification of temple usages which had 



THE PROPHETICAL BOOKS. 7 1 

gradually grown up in the course of the cen- 
turies, and it only changes these in certain of 
their forms. Although Ezekiel is earlier than 
P, yet Ezekiel presupposes some things con- 
tained in P, particularly the L,aw of Holiness. 
The arguments by which it is attempted to 
fix the approximate date of the different in- 
stitutions, the regulations concerning which 
are codified in P, we can not give here. The 
reader can not avoid observing the large place 
thus given by the critics to evolutionary prin- 
ciples in their conclusions. 

§9. Criticism of the Prophetical Books. 

It will be found more convenient to pass 
over the books Joshua — Song of Solomon for 
the present. But before taking up the pro- 
phetical books in order, it may be well to 
briefly summarize the results of criticism rel- 
ative to the nature or function of Old Testa- 
ment prophecy. Critics do not generally re- 
gard prediction as the chief element of 
prophecy. 1 The mere foretelling of future 



1 So Orelli, The Prophecies of Isaiah ; Delitzsch, Com- 
mentary on Isaiah ; Farrar, The Minor Prophets. 



72 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 

events, with the details of time and place, 
was too wanting in the moral and spiritual 
purpose which distinguished the prophets. 
Kuenen denies all inspired prediction in He- 
brew prophecy. But the majority admit pre- 
diction just as they admit miracle. Each 
prediction, however, is to be examined by it- 
self, by the application of grammatical and 
historical tests, and it is no detriment to it it 
not literally fulfilled; for the type can not in 
the nature of the case equal the fulfillment, 
and the prophets were limited in their em- 
ployment of figures by the material which 
their knowledge of the age in which they 
lived and of the past furnished. Each pro- 
phetic utterance has but one meaning, gen- 
erally limited to the immediate environment 
of the prophet. But criticism admits a sym- 
bolism where it denies direct prediction. 1 This 
does not give a prophetic passage a double 
sense, but makes it possible to apply the same 
words to the description of different events. 
The prophets generally spoke of their predic- 
tions as about to be fulfilled, showing that 

1 Horton, Revelation and the Bible. 



THE BOOK OF ISAIAH. 73 

they themselves did not know the times and 
the seasons. Hence it is possible to deny 
fulfillment to many of the prophecies if they 
be taken in all literalness. If, however, they 
be regarded not as advance descriptions of 
historical events, but as utterances designed 
to move upon the hearts of the auditors, they 
can not be denied fulfillment. Besides, many 
prophecies go unfulfilled because of a change 
in the purpose of God or the conduct of man. 
This is particularly true of the threatenings 
and the promises. The main point to be no- 
ticed is, that the denial of miracle goes hand 
in hand with the denial of prediction. But 
the conservative critic admits and emphasizes 

both.. 

§ 10. The Book of Isaiah. 

Critics are agreed in dividing this book 
into three parts; namely: Chapters i-xxxv; 
xxxvi-xxxix; xl-lxvi. The middle portion 
is historical in its contents, and is believed to 
be of much later origin than the first part. 
The third part was not written by Isaiah, but 
by the "Great Unknown," at the close of the 
Exile. The first to question the unity of 



74 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 

Isaiah was Doderlein, in the latter part of the 
last century, and his views were essentially 
those of the critics of the present day. 

The principal difficulties in the way of 
supposing that Isaiah wrote the last twenty- 
seven chapters of the Book of Isaiah are: 
i. The historical background} Throughout 
all these chapters the writer assumes the ex- 
istence of the Exile, but also its early end. 
Judea has long lain waste, and Jerusalem and 
the temple in ruins. Babylon has long op- 
pressed Israel, but her dominion will soon 
cease. The time of the Assyrian oppression 
is in the distant past (chap, lii, 4 f.) These 
assumptions are supposed to be incompatible 
with the authorship by Isaiah, whose entire 
prophecies are connected with the Assyrian 
period. Were this part of Isaiah from the 
same pen as the former part there would have 
been some recognition of the change from 
the Assyrian to the Babylonian rulership, and 
some mention of the destruction of Jerusalem 
and the captivity of the people. He could 
not have supposed that, except from his own 

1 Compare throughout, Dillmaun, Der Prophet Jesaia. 



THE BOOK OF ISAIAH. 75 

pen, such an event would be anticipated. It 
was difficult even in Jeremiah's day to make 
such a possibility comprehensible to the na- 
tion. Besides, every prophet aims to affect 
his contemporaries; but the chapters in ques- 
tion take up a situation wholly different from 
that in which Isaiah lived. Furthermore, the 
author of these chapters repeatedly refers to 
prophecies of the very conditions he assumes 
as existing. Isaiah could not have had such 
prophecies before him, since they were first 
uttered by Jeremiah and Habakkuk. 2. The 
ideas and doctrines of the latter are wholly dif- 
ferent from the former part. Not threats of 
punishment on account of sin, but consolation 
in the midst of affliction, and the prospect of 
early release. Again, Isaiah assumes the noth- 
ingness of the false gods, and the rulership of 
Jehovah even over the heathen. His purpose 
is to impress upon men's minds the thought 
of God's holiness. The author of this por- 
tion of Isaiah, on the other hand, makes it a 
principal business to declare the true deity of 
Jehovah to his people and to all the world. 
3. The literary style of this is different from the 



76 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 

former part. Of this argument no illustration 
need be given here. 

But it is not held by the critics that the 
first thirty-five chapters are all Isaian. The 
majority exclude from the true Isaian por- 
tions chapters xiii-xiv, 23; xxiv-xxvii; xxxiv. 
It may be helpful to give the arguments, at 
least in the case of xiii-xiv, 23. This is re- 
garded as having been composed in the period 
of the Babylonian exile, for the following rea- 
sons: 1. Every prophecy must have an occasion 
to call it forth. No prophet speaks except as 
the situation in which he is placed demands 
it. In chapter xiii, 6, 22, the occasion which 
prompts this prophecy is stated to be the 
nearness of the judgment upon Babylon, 
which was to bring the release of Israel. God 
has his instruments ready (xiii, 3 f.) in the 
Medes (xiii, 17). But such a situation never 
existed in the time of Isaiah. 2. The histor- 
ical background lies far from the ti7ne of Isaiah. 
Nothing is said of Assyria. Babylon is the 
ruler who has long trodden Israel under foot 
without pity (xiv, 1 f.) Isaiah has never 
mentioned the transfer of authority to Baby- 



THE BOOK OF ISAIAH. 77 

Ion, nor announced the Exile. Whoever wrote 
these chapters simply and unannounced takes 
his standpoint in the Babylonian exile. 
3. The spirit and tone of these chapters proves 
the same. The author makes no attempt to 
hide his joy at the speedy fall of Babylon; 
and pictures with delight the terrible fate of 
Babylon, its inhabitants, and its ruler. He 
expresses the bitterest irony upon the antici- 
pated humiliation of the tyrant. Such a 
sentiment would be explicable in one who 
had experienced the wretchedness of the Ex- 
ile, but not in Isaiah, who never spoke thus 
even of the Assyrians. 4. A final argument 
is drawn from the literary style, which, how- 
ever, is not as strong as the others. 

It is not our purpose here to answer, or 
even weigh the conclusions reached by criti- 
cism. For this the reader is recommended 
to any of the excellent introductions to the 
study of the Holy Scripture. Our task is 
merely to set forth, as briefly as possible, the 
most generally accepted results of recent 
criticism. 



78 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 

§11. Jeremiah and Ezekiel. 

The chief critical problems concerning 
Jeremiah pertain to its relation to the text of 
the Septuagint, and to the genuineness of cer- 
tain portions (x, 1-16; xxv, n''-i4"; xxvii, 
7, 16-21; xxxiii, 14-26; xxxix, I, 2, 4-13; 
1; li), opinions being divided.' The Sep- 
tuagint text is almost always shorter where 
it differs from the Massoretic ; but it is 
generally agreed- that the Massoretic text is 
preferable. Kiihl says: "The principal di- 
vergences of the Septuagint from the Massora 
must be charged to the translator — divergen- 
ces so deliberate that we can not attribute 
them to a transcriber, but only to a trans- 
lation." 

Ezekiel 2 is of special interest to-day be- 
cause the newer critical school places it earlier 
than the Priests' Code, for which it prepared 
the way. As a priest, Ezekiel might well be 



1 See Zockler's Handbuch der Theologischeu Wissen- 
schaften. 

2 Compare von Orelli, in Strack and Zockler's Kurzge- 
fasstes Kominentar. 



JEREMIAH AND EZEKIEL. 79 

supposed to have known the temple ritual 
prior to the Exile. The provisions made by 
Ezekiel for the temple service recognize some 
things forbidden by P; for example, the rights 
of Levites in connection with the temple. 
(Chapter xliv, 10, 13.) On the other hand, 
there is every reason to believe that the Law of 
Holiness was known to Ezekiel. The lan- 
guage in chapter iv, 14, indicates this; with 
which compare Leviticus xxii, 8. Many other 
passages might be adduced. (See list in 
Driver's Introduction, p. 139.) Some, indeed, 
see so much and so many resemblances be- 
tween Ezekiel and the Law of Holiness that 
they have concluded that the prophecy and 
H were both by one author; but, while the 
evidence of this is strong, it has not met even 
with general favor, on account of differences 
of style and matter. Thus parts, but not 
all, of P were known to Ezekiel. Since the 
relation of Ezekiel to P has been already 
treated, however, we follow the subject no 
further here. The genuineness of Ezekiel 
throughout is almost universally admitted. 



80 the higher criticism. 

§12. The Minor Prophets. 

We pass by the Book of Daniel for the 
present, reserving it for subsequent special 
mention. Kuenen gives the chronological 
order of the prophets as follows : 

i. B. C. 900-850. Pre- Assyrian Period — 
Amos, Hosea, Joel (?). 

2. B. C. 850-700. The Assyrian Period — 
Micah, Isaiah. 

3. B. C. 626-586. The Chaldean Period— 
Nahum, Zephaniah, Jeremiah, Habakkuk, the 
elder Zechariah (see under Zechariah below), 
Obadiah. 

4. B. C. 586-536. The Exile— Ezekiel. 

5. B. C. 520-400. The Post-Exilic Proph- 
ets — Zechariah, Haggai, Malachi. 

Of the prophets of the first period, we 
may pass by Amos and Hosea, since there are 
no very important critical questions raised 
concerning them. Joel, 1 however, is under 
dispute. The more conservative critics place 
his prophecies in the first decade of Joash, 



1 See Farrar, Minor Prophets, and von Orelli in Strack 
and Zockler, Kurzgefasstes Kommentar. 



THE MINOR PROPHETS. 8 1 

basing this early date upon the fact that he 
seemed to know nothing of Syrian or Assyr- 
ian oppressions, and represented the foes of 
Judah as Phoenicians, Philistines, Egyptians, 
and Edomites ; and further upon the apparent 
knowledge of Joel's prophecy exhibited by 
Amos. (Compare Amos i, 2, with Joel iv, 16 ; 
and Amos ix, 13, with Joel iv, 18.) 

But the adherents of the modern views of 
the Pentateuch generally place the prophecy 
of Joel subsequent to the Exile. The princi- 
pal arguments upon which they base this 
view are, that the prophecy makes no mention 
of the Northern Kingdom, which would 
scarcely have been possible in the days of 
Joash ; that he does not condemn idolatry, 
one of the chief sins of the times of the 
Kings; and that he makes no mention of the 
High Places, so frequently rebuked by the 
early prophets. Chiefly, however, their de- 
pendence is upon the theology, eschatology, 
and ritualism of Joel, all of which are said 
to be post-exilic, rather than exilic or pre- 
exilic. It is also supposed that his references 

to the elders and inhabitants of the land, and 

6 



82 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 

not to the kings and princes, as was usual 
with the prophets, point to the very state of 
organization which obtained under the Per- 
sians. Furthermore, Joel iii, i, and iii, 17, are 
interpreted as direct references to the Baby- 
lonish Captivity. It will be seen that the 
principal arguments for the late date are simi- 
lar to those which decide the late origin of 
the Priests' Code in the Pentateuch. 

The only other book demanding mention 

here is 

§13. Zechariah.' 

It is uniformly agreed that chapters i-viii 
were written after the return from the Exile, 
and that the author was a contemporary of 
Haggai; but as early as 1638, English theo- 
logians suspected that the later chapters must 
be attributed to another author. What aroused 
their suspicion was the reference of a proph- 
ecy in Zechariah to Jeremiah by Matthew 
xxvii, 9. One hundred and fifty years later 
(1784), Pastor Flugge, of Hamburg, in an 
anonymous work, supported the supposition 
that chapters ix-xiv did not originate with 
1 See works referred to under Joel. 



ZECHAR1AH. 83 

Zechariah. Since then this view has been 
generally maintained by critics. Many are 
also inclined to make the authorship of the 
last six chapters twofold, attributing ix-xi to 
a contemporary of Hosea, and xii-xiv to a 
writer who lived but a short time prior to the 
destruction of Jerusalem. The style of ix-xi 
is different from i-viii; its view of the temple 
and its ordinances, and its references to moral 
conditions are also different. There is no 
trace of the angelology of the first eight chap- 
ters; the death of Josiah is recent (xii, 1) ; 
the people are still idolatrous (x, 2), which 
was not the case after the Exile. Thus, if 
we think of ix-xi as pre-exilic, and of i-viii 
as post-exilic, we can more easily explain these 
divergences of view. The author of xii-xiv 
anticipates some terrible disaster. Jerusalem 
will be dishonored (xiv, 2). This probably 
referred to the coming siege and destruction 
of Jerusalem under Nebuchadnezzar. Thus, 
instead of one Zechariah we have three, as 
we have three parts in Isaiah instead of one. 
If such a severing of what seems to the or- 
dinary reader a unit is condemned as unjusti- 



84 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 

fiable, the critic is ready with, a reply. He 
affirms that written prophecies were often 
anonymous; that they were first collected 
into the canon subsequent to the Exile; that, 
meantime, traditions as to authorship had 
become untrustworthy; and that therefore 
when we find four books of prophecy in the 
Hebrew canon — namely, Isaiah, Jeremiah, 
Ezekiel, and the book of the twelve proph- 
ets — we dare not safely assume that all the 
prophecies which lie between a name and the 
name following are the product of the pen of 
the first. If differences of style, matter, his- 
torical groundwork, and the like, show them- 
selves in any considerable degree, the evidence 
of different authorship from these sources is 
stronger than that of a single authorship from 
their place in the canon. To put it in plain 
words, those who formed the canon did the 
best they knew, but their knowledge of the 
authors was no better than ours; while the 
fact that they followed tradition without crit- 
ical scrutiny renders their conclusions less 
trustworthy than those of the well-equipped 
critic of our dav. 



the book of jonah. 85 

§ 14. The Book of Jonah. 1 

That this book is the work of Jonah, the 
son of Atnittai (2 Kings xiv, 25), is universally 
denied by the critics. It is generally believed 
to have been composed during or subsequent 
to the Exile, this opinion being based chiefly 
upon the language used. It is pointed out 
that there is nothing in the book to suggest 
Jonah as its author, but that Nineveh being 
spoken of in the past tense (chapter iii, 3), in- 
dicates a composition long after the time of 
the events described. Some have supposed 
that the whole story is a pure fiction, perhaps 
in imitation of a heathen myth; but perhaps 
the majority are of the opinion that the author 
at least employed an old tradition of a mission 
of Jonah to Nineveh, during which he expe- 
rienced some unusual adventures. The ra- 
tionalists explained the miracle of the fish as 
a dream, or took the fish for the sign of some 
ship which picked Jonah up, and after three 
days set him upon dry land. The modern 
critic either regards it as a pure fiction, or 

1 See works referred to under Joel. 



86 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 

allows more or less of historical reality in the 
story. All are agreed that it is not prophecy, 
a conclusion which a moment's thought will 
support ; and all are agreed that the book has 
for its object something outside of the mere 
relation of the events described. As to what 
that object is, opinions differ. There are those 
who think it intended to justify God in send- 
ing his prophets with predictions against the 
heathen which were subsequently unfulfilled. 
Others think the book a lesson to the proph- 
ets, w r ho are thereby instructed in their office, 
the nature of prophecy, and the conditions of 
fulfillment. But the most generally accepted 
view is, that it is intended to teach God's care 
of the heathen, and to rebuke the Jews for 
their narrowness and bigotry. 

§ 15. The Book of Daniel. 1 

The traditional view of the date and 
authorship of Daniel, though still represented 
by some eminent names among the critics, is 
yielded by the vast majority, and for the fol- 






1 See Zockler's Haiidbuch der Theologischen Wisseii- 
scliafteu and Meinhold in Kurzgefasstes Koinmentar. 



THE BOOK OF DANIEL. 87 

lowing reasons: 1. The place of the book in the 
Hebrew canon. The second part of this canon 
contained the prophets ; but Daniel is not 
placed among them. On the contrary, he is 
placed among the books of the third collec- 
tion, which was formed at a late period. 2. 
Daniel is not mentioned in the list of prophetic 
writings given by Jesus, the son of Sirach y 
who, writing about the year 200 B. C, men- 
tions, in his chapters xliv-1, Isaiah, Jeremiah, 
Ezekiel, and the twelve minor prophets, 
but not Daniel. 3. Linguistic considerations. 
Chapters ii, 4'— vii are written in Aramaic, 
which was hardly known to the Jews earlier 
than the Persian period. Furthermore, the 
style of this portion is the Aramaic of Pales- 
tine, not of Babylon — a fact which points to 
the composition in Palestine, and, hence, 
after the Babylonian Exile. Besides, the name 
given to the wise men (0^2) points to a period 
when, the Chaldean kingdom having been de- 
stroyed, only the magi remained, to whom 
was applied the title belonging to the whole 
nation. Especially weighty is the evidence 
from the fact that Persian words are placed 



58 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 

in the mouth even of Nebuchadnezzar, which 
could only be done by an author who had en- 
tirely forgotten their Persian origin. The 
late origin of the book is also deduced from 
the Greek names of musical instruments, 
which could only have been learned after the 
invasion of the East by Alexander the Great. 
Linguistic considerations also prevail in those 
parts which are written in Hebrew, comprising 
chapters i, viii-xii, the unskillful handling of 
the language indicating that it was, at the 
time of the writing, either dead or dying. 
4. Arguments drawn from the contents of the 
book. Chapter ix, 1, presupposes a collection 
of sacred Scriptures which included Jeremiah; 
but such a collection could hardly have been 
in use in the time of the Exile. Then the 
mention of the names and orders of angels, 
and the reference to national guardian angels 
(x, 13, 20; xi, 1; xii, 1), indicates a develop- 
ment of angelology not probable in the time 
of the Exile, but suitable for the Maccabaean 
period. Further, the other prophets made the 
end of the Babylonian exile and the beginning 
of the Messianic kingdom identical, while in 



THE BOOK OF DANIEL. 89 

Daniel the redemption of Israel is placed in 
the distant future. Besides, the author seems 
to have no message for the people of his own 
times — as prophets usually did — on the suppo- 
sition that he lived in the period of the Exile ; 
but if he be supposed to have written in the age 
of Antiochus Epiphanes, then his minute de- 
scription of events down to that age, and the 
indistinctness subsequent thereto, are easily 
accounted for. 

As to attributing the book to Daniel, the 
author simply did what was common in his 
time. Those who did it had no thought of 
forgery, as we understand it. Besides, he was 
not writing a canonical book. Nevertheless, 
the Jews did well to receive it into the canon, 
since in the time of the Maccabees it was a 
source of great religious stimulus. The book 
is supposed to rest upon old traditions con- 
cerning Daniel, and. perhaps to have been 
written, in part, not earlier than B. C. 300. 
The purpose of this Aramaic document was 
to strengthen the courage of the Jews in per- 
secution by the example of Daniel. This was 
wrought into the later Maccabsean document, 



90 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 

the object of the whole also being encourage- 
ment to faithfulness in trial. 

§16. The Psalms. 1 

For convenience, we give here the divisions 
of the five books of the Psalter. The first 
book contains Psalms i-xli; the second, 
xlii-lxxii ; the third, lxxiii-lxxxix ; the fourth, 
xc-cvi ; the fifth, cvii-cl. It has been sup- 
posed that this division was made to corre- 
spond to the five books of the Law; but, as 
we shall see, it had another origin. 

Psalms are attributed by the superscrip- 
tions attached to them to David, Moses, Solo- 
man, Asaph, Heman, Ethan, and the sons of 
Korah. The value to be attached to these 
superscriptions is in dispute. Most critics 
unhesitatingly pronounce it impossible that 
David should have written all the Psalms as- 
cribed to him in the Psalter. They claim 
that, in many cases, the language employed 
decides ; in other cases, the historical condi- 



1 Hupfeld. Die Psalmen ; and T. K. Chevne. The Psalms ; 
also Driver, Introduction; and H. P. Smith, in Biblical 
Scholarship, etc. 



THE PSALMS. 9 1 

tions revealed are such as do not suit the 
times in which David lived. But if some of 
these superscriptions are thus proved unwor- 
thy of credence, we have no assurance, with- 
out special examination in each case, that 
any of the others are trustworthy. It is 
asserted that the L,XX treated these super- 
scriptions with a freedom which indicated 
that they did not regard them as fixed ; that 
those who attached them were probably not 
the authors themselves, but later editors ; 
that in so doing they did not, in all cases, 
mean to designate the author, but rather to 
indicate that they were taken from collections 
in possession of those who claimed descent 
from David, or Asaph, or some other. Thus, 
while the compiler only meant to place at the 
head of each Psalm a reminder of the source 
from which he had taken it, the later genera- 
tions understood it to mean that it was com- 
posed by the one whose name it bore. 

The followers of the extreme Pentateuchal 
criticism deny the Davidic origin of almost 
every Psalm ascribed to him, and make the 
Psalms the products of the late post-exilic 



92 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 

period, some even dating the larger part of 
the Psalter in the Maccabsean period. They 
point to the fact that in the earlier books of 
the canon — as Samuel and Kings — David is 
represented as a player, but not as a composer. 
They emphasize the frequency of the supposed 
antithesis in the Psalms between the godly 
and the godless, and affirm that such an antag- 
onism was never distinctly marked until the 
beginning of the persecution under Antiochus 
Epiphanes, when the true servants of God had 
to struggle against their heathen oppressors 
and their apostate brethren. 

But a more conservative criticism, while 
not denying the late origin of some of the 
Psalms, arranges the order somewhat as fol- 
lows : i. A collection of Davidic Psalms, be- 
ginning with Psalm iii, and distinguished by 
the prevailing use of the name Jehovah (or 
Jahveh) for God. 2. A collection of Psalms 
of Korah, in which the name Elohim is 
used for God. (Psalms xlii-xlix.) 3. These 
were united by an editor who added an Elo- 
him Psalm of Asaph (the fiftieth), a number 
of Elohim Psalms by David (li-lxxi), and 



THE PSALMS. 93 

then the Solomonic Psalm lxxii. He also 
prefixed an ancient Messianic Psalm (our 
second Psalm), and possibly composed Psalm i 
as an introduction to all. If so, he must 
have written prior to Jeremiah, to whom 
Psalm i was known. 4. The third book, 
judging from Psalms lxxiv and lxxix, may 
have come into existence subsequent to the 
Babylonian exile ; and the collector of these 
Psalms was not identical with the editor 
who united the first two books. 5. The 
work of still another collector begins with 
the fourth book, which contains but two 
Psalms (ci and ciii) with the names of the 
authors attached, both of which the Hebrew 
canon attributes to David. 6. The fifth book 
is from still another collector. It contains fif- 
teen Davidic Psalms and one Solomonic Psalm. 
This collector is supposed to be also the final 
editor, having supplied the doxologies which 
mark the close of each of the first four books 
of the Psalter. Those who deny the Macca- 
baean date of any of the Psalms think the 
final editor lived in the time of Ezra and 
Nehemiah. 



94 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 

While the critics deny the binding force of 
the titles which profess to give either the 
liturgical or historical occasion of the compo- 
sition or the names of the authors of the 
Psalms, yet the more conservative are dis- 
posed to defend those who attached these 
titles from the charge of arbitrary guesswork, 
and to believe that they represent very old 
tradition. As to the authorship of seventy- 
three Psalms ascribed to David in our Psalter, 
Hitzig, who thinks most of the Psalms were 
composed in the period of the Maccabees, al- 
lows that David wrote fourteen. Ewald only 
gives him eleven entire Psalms, and some 
parts of four others (xix, 2-7; lx, 8-1 1; lxviii, 
14-19; cxliv, 12-14). Delitzsch thinks forty- 
four are Davidic, and holds that Psalms lxxiv 
and lxxix are from the time of the Maccabees; 
possibly also Psalm cxxiii. 

As to the value of the Psalms, the critics 
generally agree that few are truly prophetic; 
even conservatives limiting the Messianic 
Psalms to the second and the one hundred 
and tenth, while Psalms xxii, xlv, lxix, lxxii, 
may be regarded as typical-prophetical. Some 



THE PSALMS. 95 

few others are classed as merely typical, as 
xli, 10. The Law and the Prophets gave the 
rule for conduct; the Psalms give the experi- 
ences of those who endeavored to conform 
themselves to the standard of the Old Testa- 
ment. The Psalms do not, according to the 
critics, give us a standard by which we may 
regulate our experiences. They must each 
be judged by their approach to the spirit of 
Christ. The Psalms exhibit, not what a Chris- 
tian should be, but what piety was in the light 
of the revelation granted in pre-Christian 
times. It is assumed that as the revelation 
was not so pure and complete, the religious 
life could not be so exalted as under the Gos- 
pel dispensation. This denies the distinctive 
inspiration of the thoughts and feelings ex- 
pressed in the Psalms, and makes them the 
portrayal of the religious consciousness of 
those who were trained under the Law and the 
Prophets. 



96 the higher criticism. 

§17. The Book of Proverbs. 
Strack 1 divides the book into nine parts: 
I. Superscription (i, 1-6) and Motto (v. 7). 
II. Introductions (i, 8-ix). 

III. First collection of Solomonic proverbs, 

designated S I (x-xxii, 16). 

IV. First appendix (xxii, 17-xxiv, 22), Words 

of the Wise. 
V. Second appendix (xxiv, 23-34), also 

Words of the Wise. 
VI. Second collection of Solomonic proverbs, 
designated S II (xxv-xxix). 
VII. First supplement (xxx), Words of Agur 

the son of Jakeh. 
VIII. Second supplement (xxxi, 1-9), Words 
of King Lemuel. 
IX. Third supplement (xxxi, 10-31), Praise 
of a virtuous woman. 

Of all these parts the only ones generally 
recognized as Solomonic are III and VI. It is 
claimed that none of the rest professes to 
have been written by the wise king. That 



1 In Zockler's Haudbuch der Theologischen Wissen- 
schaften. 



THE BOOK OF PROVERBS. 97 

there are many expressions in I and II which 
are identical with those in III is admitted; 
but this is explained by the supposition that 
the author of the former was the collector of 
III, to whose style of thought and language 
he conformed himself as much as possible. 
Against the Solomonic origin of I and II it is 
urged that they contain a series of expressions 
not found in III nor VI, and, indeed, not else- 
where in the Bible. To the words of chapter 
i, 1, the collector added a long introduction, 
as a comparison with chapter x, 1, shows. 
Delitzsch and Kuenen have both shown that 
there is a relationship between I and II and 
Deuteronomy. Attention is also called to the 
fact that there is a dependence between Job 
and I, II, and III. Some, however, think that 
the collector of I, II, and III used Job, rather 
than the reverse. 

That Solomon wrote proverbs is settled by 
1 Kings v, 9-13. In III and VI are found five 
hundred of his three thousand proverbs. The 
Solomonic authorship of III is proved by chap- 
ter x, 1, in connection with chapter i, 1, and 
by xxv, 1, on the supposition that the men of 



98 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 

Hezekiah there mentioned knew III. All the 
proverbs of III are composed of two lines, the 
form supposed to be earliest in use for pro- 
verbial writing. Yet III did not come from 
Solomon in its present form; for the proverbs 
it contains are not arranged according to any 
consistently applied principle, but seem in 
most cases to follow each other as accident 
happened. Hence it is presumed that III 
must have gradually grown up, partly from 
the noting down of the proverbs as remem- 
bered by the people, and partly from written 
sources. Furthermore, each verse of III is an 
independent proverb, which is not the case 
with VI. This leads to the supposition that 
some one, whose literary tastes were less va- 
ried than Solomon's, collected III. In addi- 
tion, the repetitions of word and thought are 
so numerous in III as to forbid the supposi- 
tion that Solomon himself made the collec- 
tion. He might often have repeated himself 
in three thousand proverbs, but he would 
hardly have done so in a collection of the 
three hundred and seventy-five in III. It is 
also supposed that in III there are some post- 



THE BOOK OF PROVERBS. 99 

Solomonic proverbs, the principal proof being 
founded on a comparison of the Hebrew and 
LXX text. Various dates are given for the 
collection of III, but it is generally agreed to 
have been during the period of the early 
kings. 

The Solomonic origin of the proverbs of 
VI has been disputed by Ewald on the ground 
that the earliest form of Hebrew verse was 
composed of two lines, and the attempt to 
make it appear that Solomon wrote only an- 
tithetical proverbs in this form. This is an- 
swered by the fact that we can not suppose 
Solomon to have been mentally so poor as 
only to write in one style. It must be ad- 
mitted, however, that VI is very different from 
III in several respects. The form of the 
verses is different; the parabolic (emblematic) 
manner of expression is frequently found here, 
and only twice in III; while in VI the dark 
side of the monarchy is emphasized in con- 
trast with III, which sees only its bright side. 
But all this is explicable on the supposition 
that we have in VI more post-Solomonic prov- 
erbs.. According to xxv, 1, a commission 



IOO THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 

formed by Hezekiah copied VI. An attempt 
has been made to show by the repetitions in 
VI of proverbs in III that the men of Heze- 
kiah did not know III; but these repetitions 
are so few in number as to make the suppo- 
sition necessary that they knew it, and knew 
that it was widely employed, or else they 
would have repeated far more than they did. 

As to IV, its non-Solomonic origin is sup- 
posed to be proved by chapter xxii, 17, which 
seems to attribute what follows to a variety of 
wise men. Delitzsch supposed it to have 
sprung from the author of I and II and col- 
lector of III. Others think that this collector 
found IV ready prepared, and joined it to his 
I, II, and III. The first verse of V is supposed 
to show that it is from another collector. 
The similarity of its beginning with that of 
xxv, i, is evidence that it was placed here by 
the one who united I, II, III, IV, and VI, his 
purpose being to prevent the proverbs it con- 
tained from being lost. 

The author of II is presumed to be the 
same as the author of I. We still have to 
deal with VII, VIII, and IX. Neither Agur nor 



THE BOOK OF JOB. I O I 

Jakeh are known outside of VII; but they 
must have been Israelites, since verse 5 is de- 
pendent upon the Davidic Psalm xviii, 31, and 
verse 6 upon Deuteronomy iv, 2; xiii, 1. 
Verses 1-4 emphasize the insufficiency of hu- 
man knowledge, which had been done long 
before. The author is supposed to have lived 
subsequently to Hezekiah. As to VIII, it was 
certainly written outside Palestine, if the 
translation of the superscription proposed by 
Hitzig and maintained by Delitzsch and 
others shall finally prevail, making Lemuel 
king of Massa. It is yet in dispute. The 
third supplement (IX) is in the form of an 
alphabetic song. It presupposes a carefully 
ordered civil state, nourishing trade relations, 
and the cultivation of the soil as a principal 
occupation. It was probably written in the 
time of Hezekiah. In order to bring all these 
parts together, one final editor must be as- 
sumed. 

§ 18. The Book of Job. 1 

Among the critical conclusions reached by 
some is the idea that the book is intended to 

1 Volck, Das Buch Hiob, in Kurzgefasstes Konimeruar. 



102 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 

describe the sufferings of the Israelitish people 
during the Babylonian exile. To this it is 
answered that, if for no other reason, this 
opinion must be rejected, because Job (the 
Israelites, on this supposition) denies all guilt 
or self-censure in connection with his suffer- 
ing. He is, in his own estimation and in that 
of God, an innocent sufferer; but Israel, in 
the Exile, suffered because of its sins. 

The great majority of critics hold to the 
belief that the author had for the basis of his 
work a tradition which more or less completely 
corresponded to reality. It is, of course, 
impossible to tell how closely the author ad- 
hered to this tradition ; but it is almost uni- 
versally conceded that the book is not a pure 
fiction. His long life (one hundred and forty 
years subsequent to his great affliction) ; the 
mention of coins known to us from the history 
of Jacob and Joshua (Gen. xxxiii, 19 ; Josh. 
xxiv, 32) in chapter xlii, 11 ; the fact that the 
only musical instruments mentioned are those 
mentioned in Genesis, indicates that Job lived 
in the early patriarchal time ; but his peculiar 
use of names to designate the Deity shows 



THE BOOK OF JOB. 1 03 

that he lived and moved outside the Israel- 
itish fold. 

The principal part which has been re- 
garded as spurious is the chapters xxxii- 
xxxvii, containing the speeches of Elihu. 
The reasons for regarding them as the work 
of a later hand are: 1. That they seem not 
to fit into the general plan of the poem. 
Elihu is not mentioned in the prologue among 
those present. Also in the epilogue, when 
God expresses his judgment of what has been 
said, Elihu is not mentioned ; nor is any 
reference found in any part of the book to 
what Elihu has here said. The passage can 
be removed bodily, and never be missed in 
the argument. 2. On the other hand, the pas- 
sage disturbs the unity of the whole. It says 
beforehand some things found in Jehovah's ad- 
dress, and repeats much said by the friends. 
When God speaks in chapter xxxviii, he as- 
sumes that Job has just finished, so that the 
passage in question destroys the connection 
between chapters xxxi and xxxviii. 3. It 
differs in language from the other portions of 
the book. 4. Elihu introduces himself, which 



104 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 

excites our suspicion, while the subscript fol- 
lowing xxxi, 40, makes the section evidently 
an addition. 

Both the prologue (chapters i and ii) and 
the epilogue (chapter xlii, 7 ff.) have been at- 
tacked; but the majority regard them as nec- 
essary to the poem, and to its understanding 
by the reader. Opinions are divided concern- 
ing the genuineness of chapters xl, 15-xli, 26. 
It is attacked chiefly on the ground that it is 
in bad taste. Studer (in Jahrb. fiir prot. 
Theol., 1875) tried to prove that the original 
Job is found in chapters xxix; xxx; iii, 3-xxvii, 
7 ; xxxi ; and that it was subsequently edited 
and reconstructed five different times. This 
view has now no followers. 

The book has been attributed to Moses, 
Solomon, Baruch, and Job ; but there is noth- 
ing except supposition in favor of any name. 
That it was written by Moses is now almost 
universally disputed, because it evidently was 
written later than his period. All that is 
known of the development of Hebrew litera- 
ture speaks against so early a date. The 
mistake arose from the confusing of the poet 



THE BOOK OF JOB. 105 

with the hero of the poem, the time described 
with the period in which the author lived. 
On the other hand, but few now place the 
book so late as the exilian period. This view 
was defended chiefly on the ground that the 
Satanology of the book is too developed for 
an earlier period ; but most critics think there 
is no connection between the Satan of the 
Book of Job and the Parsee doctrine of angels. 
In favor of the Solomonic period, it has been 
urged that the book displays a remarkable 
fullness of knowledge of nature suitable to 
that period ; also that Proverbs i-ix seems to 
be dependent upon Job. Besides, it has been 
said that such a book as Job, so full of reflec- 
tion and so carefully planned, must belong to 
the period of highest literary culture. But 
unless Proverbs i-ix was written at least in 
the time of Jehoshaphat, there is no proof from 
the literary connection between Proverbs and 
Job ; besides, the period of high literary activ- 
ity was not confined to the time of David and 
Solomon. 

Since Jeremiah xx shows that Jeremiah 
had Job iii before him when he wrote, it is 



106 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 

plain that Job was not written later than Jere- 
miah. From Job xii, 14-25, where the refer- 
ence is to a captivity of a nation, it may be 
presumed that there is an example first in 
the Assyrian period, and, hence, that the book 
may have been written about 700 B. C. 
This is perhaps the most generally accepted 
date. 

The date of the interpolation of chapters 
xxxii-xxxvii can not be fixed. 

§19. ECCLESIASTES. 1 

While some see in this book a dialogue 
between two persons of different opinions 
concerning the subject in hand, others see in 
it only a succession of contradictory thoughts 
held together by the constantly recurring idea 
that all is vanity. Some have thought that 
the book fell into two parts, a theoretical and 
a practical — the former including chapters 
i-iv, 16; the latter, chapters iv, 17-xii, 7. 
But while these sections bear respectively the 
general character thus assigned them, yet the 



1 Volck, Der Prediger Salomo, in Kurzgefasstes Kom- 
mentar. 



ECCLESIASTES. 1 07 

theoretical and the practical are well repre- 
sented in both parts. Perhaps the most satis- 
factory view is, that it is not a systematic 
presentation of the theme, but that the author 
simply utters the feelings of his heart as they 
come to him, thus speaking from his very 
soul. 

Some have found in the book a philosoph- 
ical tendency — a search after the highest good, 
or for that which is permanent in the midst 
of the evanescent and changeful. Some have 
thought they saw a dependence of the author 
upon the Epicurean and Stoic philosophy. 
Others have thought the book skeptical in 
tendency, while the school of Schopenhauer 
have found their pessimism in its first four 
chapters. Still others find the book written 
with a practical religious purpose. This is 
perhaps the most satisfactory opinion. 

The idea that it was written by Solomon 
is almost wholly abandoned by recent critics. 
The language of the book is regarded as pos- 
itive evidence of very late composition; but 
when the attempt to fix the exact period of its 
composition is made, opinions divide. All 



108 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 

agree that it is post-exilian. But it is held 
that while the language of Malachi is still a 
pure Hebrew, that of Ecclesiastes shows dis- 
tinct traces of the Aramaic and of the idioms 
of the Mishna. So that the book must be 
later than the time of Malachi. The author 
speaks of the power, the caprice, and the vo- 
luptuousness of the rulers. This corresponds 
to the later period of the Persian rule. Some 
have thought that the book was written in 
Alexandria; but others object to this that 
chapters xi, 3 f., and xii, 2, presuppose a coun- 
try in which the rain frequently falls, and in 
which the fruitfulness of the earth is depend- 
ent upon the rain, which is not the case with 
Egypt. On the other hand, chapter i, 7, does 
not conflict with the idea of its Palestinian 
origin; while v, 1, implies the presence of the 
temple, and viii, 10, the existence of holy 
places, and x, 15, nearness at least to the city 
of Jerusalem. Formerly it was customary to 
dispute both the unity and integrity of the 
book; but both are now generally recognized. 
Only a few small portions are in doubt; viz., 
the epilogue (xii, -9-14); xi, 9/; xii, i a ; and 



ECCLESIASTES. 109 

xii, 7. Concerning the epilogue it is declared 
that it is superfluous and without object; that 
while in the other portions of the book the 
author speaks in the first person, here the 
third person is employed; that here he repre- 
sents piety and the fear of God as the goal of 
all true endeavor, in contradiction to the pre- 
vious recommendation of enjoyment as the 
highest good ; that the representation of a last 
judgment in verse 14 contradicts the former 
denial of immortality; and that it was not 
true in the time of the Persian epoch, when 
the book is supposed to have been written, 
that it was a book-making period. To all 
this the defenders of xii, 9-14, reply that there 
is no ground for the last assertion ; and that, 
properly understood, the contradictions urged 
disappear. 

Let it be observed that, while almost all 
deny the authorship to Solomon, it is agreed 
that the real author attributes it to the wise 
king. 



iio the higher criticism. 

§20. The Song of Solomon. 1 

Two views concerning the nnity of this 
book obtain to the present day. According to 
the first, it is not a unit, but a series of love- 
songs, strung loosely together. Reuss held 
this view, except that the sixteen different 
pieces — of which, according to him, it is com- 
posed — all related to the same circumstances. 
The other view, which is now the prevailing 
one, is, that it is a unit, although opinions 
differ widely as to the manner in which the 
parts are related to each other. The majority 
regard it as a melodrama. The difficulty of 
finding any single connecting thread has been 
the chief support of the opinion that it is a 
medley rather than a united whole. The 
argument of the Song is thus given by Oettli, 
who divides the whole into fifteen scenes: 
As the Shulamite, the daugher of well-to-do 
country people of Shunein, upon a spring day, 
went into her garden, her beauty was observed 
by the occupants of a royal carriage-train, 
and she w^as brought into a royal summer 



THE SONG OF SOLOMON. 1 1 1 

villa, not far from her home. Here she was 
placed under the care of the women of the 
harem, who were to dispose her favorably 
toward the king. In secret, however, she 
loved a youth of her native place. All efforts 
of the king to win her affections were made 
vain by her loyalty to her peasant lover ; and 
at length the king himself let her go in peace. 
Her lover, with whom she had meanwhile held 
conversations, led her home, and with him she 
entered into a covenant of eternal love. 

J. G. Stickel holds essentially the same 
view, but thinks that interwoven with the 
drama of Solomon and the Shulamite is an- 
other pertaining to a shepherd and shep- 
herdess, whose scenes — three in number — are 
as follows: i, 7, 8 ; i, 15-ii, 4; iv, 7-v, 1. He 
thinks that the interweaving of this drama 
heightens the interest of the other by con- 
trast, and designates the breaks in the treat- 
ment of the principal theme. 

Delitzsch held that Solomon and the sup- 
posed friend of the Shulamite were identical. 
He supposes that Solomon, being by chance- 
in the neighborhood of her home, had his 



112 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 

attention called to her beauty, and that this 
Song describes the progress of his suit up to 
the time of their marriage. The principal ob- 
jection urged against this hypothesis is the 
improbability that Solomon, the delicate and 
fastidious king, should descend to the manner 
of life of a peasant, and for a considerable 
period of time, as this conception of the Song 
requires. 

The allegorical interpretation makes Solo- 
mon and the Shulamite the representatives 
respectively of God and Israel, or Christ and 
the Church, some (Roman Catholics) making 
it even to stand for the relation of Christ to 
the individual soul. Of any such interpreta- 
tion there is no trace in the New Testament; 
and, in the Church, it first appeared with 
Origen. To make it a literal description of 
the love experiences of two young people in 
early centuries seems to rob it of its right to 
a place in the canon. The defenders of the 
literal interpretation, however, say that such 
a representation of faithfulness in love is not 
unworthy of a place in the religion of reve- 
lation. 



THE SONG OF SOLOMON. 1 13 

The question of the authorship and date of 
the book is closely connected with the opin- 
ion held as to its dramatis personcz. Most of 
those who believe the hero and heroine to 
have been Solomon and the Shulamite, with- 
out the interference of a peasant friend of the 
heroine, hold Solomon to be the author. This 
they maintain on the ground of the super- 
scription. The opposers of this view regard 
this superscription as untrustworthy, and think 
that, since its supporters interpret v, 2-7, as a 
description of Solomon's unfaithfulness to the 
one he had just won, it is unlikely that Solo- 
mon wrote the book, since he would hardly 
have celebrated his own depravity in song. 

If, on the other hand, the beloved is not 
Solomon, but the shepherd, then it is impossi- 
ble that Solomon should have written it. He 
would not have described himself as sensual, 
nor as having been rejected by a country girl. 

Yet the testimony is in favor of its early 
composition. Hosea, in the eighth century 
B. C, had read the book. (Compare Hosea 
xiv, 6-9, with Song ii, 1, 3 ; iv, 11 ; vi, 11.) 
The mention of Tirzah (vi, 4) points to a time 



114 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 

when that city, the residence of Omri (i Kings 
xvi, 24), was still standing. The memory of 
the Solomonic period seems fresh in the mind 
of the author ; and there is no trace of na- 
tional misfortune. This, with other facts, 
speaks strongly in favor of the early part of 
the tenth century B. C. These considerations 
forbid placing the drama in the exilic or post- 
exilic period, as some have done. The close- 
ness of the time of its composition to the 
period of Solomon also forbids that it should 
have been intended for pure fiction. It is 
probably founded in large measure on fact. 
This further forbids the supposition that it 
was written to rebuke the immorality of the 
court in Alexandria in the time of the Mac- 
cabees. 

§21. The Lamentations of Jeremiah. 1 

The Lamentations do not name their own 
author. But the oldest of our traditions as- 
cribe them to Jeremiah ; so, the LXX, Targurn, 
and the Talmud (Baba Bathra), which also 
makes Jeremiah the author of Kings. The 

1 Oettli, Die Klagelieder, in Kurzgefasstes Kommentar. 






THE L AMENTA TIONS OF JEREMIAH. 1 1 5 

critics of to-day are divided in their opinions. 
There have been those who denied the unity 
of authorship, a variety of authors being 
suggested by the fact that i and ii mention 
the deportation of the Jews, while the re- 
mainder only speak of the laying waste of 
Zion ; that the alphabetical order followed in 
the main by the first four is given up in the 
fifth ; and by the inequality of merit in the 
five poems. The majority, however, are con- 
vinced that all are the product of one author, 
since the style and the circle of ideas are es- 
sentially the same throughout. 

Arguments against the Jeremianic author- 
ship, however, are brought forward in large 
numbers. The style is supposed to be differ- 
ent from Jeremiah's ; the alphabetical arrange- 
ment followed in the first four poems is nowhere 
found in the prophecy ; Jeremiah xxxi, 29, 30, 
is declared to be in contradiction to Lamenta- 
tions v, 7 ; the author of Lamentations does 
not remind his readers of his prophecies, as 
it might be supposed Jeremiah would have 
done. 

By placing the waiting of Lamentations 



Il6 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 

subsequent to Bzekiel, some have tried to 
prove that it was not written by Jeremiah. 
Chapter ii, 14, is supposed to be borrowed 
from Ezekiel xii, 24, or xiii, 6. To this the 
defenders of Jeremiah answer that, according 
to Bzekiel viii, 1, we must suppose that chap- 
ters xii and xiii were written in the sixth year 
of the carrying away into captivity of Jehoia- 
kim, and hence five years prior to the destruc- 
tion of Jerusalem. Since Lamentations be- 
moans the destruction of the city by Nebu- 
chadnezzar and his successors, Jeremiah might 
have seen Ezekiel's language in chapters xii 
and xiii. 

Very conservative German critics see no 
reason to doubt that the book might have 
been written by another than Jeremiah, and 
attributed to that prophet after the real 
authorship had been forgotten; but such 
would hardly deny that it is, all things con- 
sidered, probable that the book was written by 
Jeremiah. 



the book of ruth. 117 

§22. The Book of Ruth. 1 

The object of this book is evidently to re- 
late the early history of the family of David. 
There are those who suppose, however, that a 
correlated purpose was to show that God had 
no exclusive interest in the Jews, and that he 
would not despise to have a Moabitess among 
the female progenitors of the line from which 
Christ sprang. 

The book has been regarded by some as 
pure fiction. The principal supports for such 
a supposition are: 1. That the marriage of 
Ruth with Boaz transcends the law requiring 
the brother-in-law to marry the widow ; 
2. That if the Book of Judges gives us a 
trustworthy impression of the period, Ruth 
must be wholly unhistorical ; 3. The fact that 
the names employed in the book appear to be 
symbolical. Those who defend the historical 
character of the book admit the possibility of 
a somewhat artificial dress for the real facts, 
but deny the validity of any of the arguments 
mentioned above. 



1 Oettli, Das Buch Ruth, in Kurzgefasstes Kommentar. 



Il8 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 

Kwald placed the date of composition in 
the exilian, Kuenen, Wellhausen, von Orelli, 
and others, in the post-exilian period, in sup- 
port of which they offer a variety of reasons, 
particularly those drawn from the language, 
which is full of Aramaisms. But none of 
these would have been impossible, it is re- 
plied, in the times of the later kings; and, 
besides, they are placed by the author in the 
mouths of the persons speaking, and do not 
occur often in his own language, thus prov- 
ing that they are employed to give a popular 
coloring to the story. The probability that 
Ruth was originally not connected with 
Judges, but found its place in the so-called 
third canon — that is, latest collection of Old 
Testament books — has also been used to 
prove the late (post-exilic) origin of the book; 
but it is answered that this would not prove 
its non-existence prior to its reception into 
the canon. 

The strongest argument for its composi- 
tion in the same period from which the Books 
of Samuel sprang is, that it could only have 
been produced when the feelings of the Jews 



THE BOOK OF ESTHER. 119 

were yet comparatively liberal toward the 
Gentiles, the style of writing still simple, and 
the narrowness of the post-exilian Judaism 
was yet unknown. 

Chapter iv, 18-22, is supposed by many to 
be a later addition, made in the early Greek 
period, and taken from 1 Chronicles ii, the 
object being to carry the genealogy of David 
back to the beginnings of the people of Israel. 
It has been observed that this genealogy can 
not be complete, since it gives but ten names 
for the period of eight centuries. 

§23. The Book of Esther. 1 

Much in this book has led to the belief 
that it is at most a fiction founded upon fact, 
while many reject its historical trustworthi- 
ness altogether. Among the reasons for the 
latter conclusion are the following: The de- 
cree itself, which granted the right absolutely 
to lay Judea waste; the too early publica- 
tion of the same, thus making it possible for 
the condemned to escape; the sudden turning 



1 Das Buch Esther, Oettli, in Kurzgefasstes Kom- 
mentar. 



120 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 

of the king in favor of the Jews; the im- 
mense number of Persian subjects put to 
death by the few Jews, and that with the con- 
nivance of the Persian authorities; the ease 
with which the time was extended in which 
the Jews could take revenge on the Per- 
sians in Susa; the immense height of the gal- 
lows ; and the conversion of many Persians to 
Judaism. 

On the other hand, those who favor the 
historicity of the book affirm that the author 
had a most exact knowledge of the Persians 
and the Persian court; that the portraiture 
of Ahasuerus (Xerxes) agrees with what He- 
rodotus says of him in his seventh and 
ninth books ; that it was not uncommon for 
whole peoples to be destroyed by their ener 
mies; that the Feast of Purim among the 
Jews can not be accounted for except by 
some incident like that related in the Book of 
Esther. 

The purpose of the book seems to be to 
explain how the Feast of Purim came into 
existence. It does not mention the name of 
God, which fact has been accounted for on 



THE BOOK OF ESTHER. 121 

the ground that the later Jews avoided the 
use of the name of God except in the temple 
worship. Yet it recognizes the providence of 
God, although the zeal of the characters is for 
the people rather than for God. It is full of 
the spirit of race prejudice and of revenge. 

Few to-day regard Mordecai as the author. 
The believers in the strict historical character 
of the book think it was written near the time 
of the scenes it depicts. Those who deny it 
any historical value place it late in the time of 
the Seleucidse. The splendor the author as- 
cribes to the rulership of Xerxes would seem 
to point to a period considerably later than 
the events. 

No doubt is felt as to the unity of the book, 
except the parts ix, 20-28, and 29-32. It is 
asserted that the language here is different 
from the other portions ; that the date of the 
feast given in ix, 17-19, contradicts the state- 
ments of ix, 20-28; and that ix, 32, refers to a 
book in which these " matters of Purim " were 
written, and from which the letters in question 
might have been taken by the author himself, 
or by a later editor who inserted them. 



122 the higher criticism. 

§ 24. The Chronicles. 1 

It is agreed that the two books were origi- 
nally one, and the division is supposed to have 
been first made by the LXX. Ezra and Ne- 
hemiah are also believed to have belonged 
originally together. The last verses of Chroni- 
cles are identical with the first verses of Ezra; 
and, since they seem to be necessary to Ezra, 
it is assumed that they did not originally be- 
long to Chronicles, but were placed there to 
indicate that Ezra-Nehemiah is the contin- 
uation of the history given in Chronicles. 
The four books form one continuous whole 
from the time of Adam to the middle of the 
fifth century before Christ. They are strik- 
ingly alike in language. They display a like 
interest in genealogical tables and in the de- 
scription of events and general facts pertain- 
ing to worship. Hence, it is supposed that 
they were compiled by the same author; or 
else that they had a common editor; or, third, 
that the author of Ezra-Nehemiah subse- 



1 Evans and Smith, Biblical Scholarship and Inspira- 
tion ; Oettli, Die Biicher der Chronik. 



THE CHRONICLES. 1 23 

quently carried his historical work backward 
by writing Chronicles. 

One of the points in dispute between the 
critics pertains to the sources from which the 
chronicler drew his information. It is agreed 
by nearly all that he knew and employed the 
canonical books of Samuel and Kings ; and 
those who deny the trustworthiness of Chroni- 
cles think these books were his chief, if not his 
only source. Those, on the other hand, who 
believe the Chronicles to contain reliable his- 
torical data, think his principal source to be 
the " Book of the Kings of Judah and Israel," 
so often referred to by the chronicler, and 
which evidently contained much matter not 
found in Samuel and Kings. He also refers 
(1 Chron. xxix, 29) to the books of Samuel the 
Seer, of Nathan the Prophet, and of Gad the 
Seer ; and, in 2 Chron. xii, 15, to the books of 
Shemaiah the Prophet, and of Iddo the Seer; 
also, in 2 Chron. xiii, 24, to the story (or as in 
margin, commentary) of the prophet Iddo, and 
(2 Chron, xxiv, 27) to the story or commentary 
of the Book of the Kings. The general suppo- 
sition is, however, that the prophetical books 



124 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 

mentioned were parts of the "Book of the 
Kings of Judah and Israel," while the stories 
or commentaries referred to also formed an- 
other source. As facts bearing on the ques- 
tion of the date of composition, Oettli gives 
the following: i. The close of the Chronicles 
indicates a post-exilian date; and the Aramaic 
preferences of the language, its late orthogra- 
phy, and its place in the third canon subse- 
quent to Ezra-Nehemiah, point to its compo- 
sition at a still later period. 2. The mention 
of Cyrus as " King of Persia " (2 Chron. xxxvi, 
22 f.), and the frequent mention of his succes- 
sors in Ezra-Nehemiah as " Kings of Persia," 
indicate that the author lived in the Greek 
period. 3. The author carries the line of 
David down to the sixth generation after 
Zerubbabel. (1 Chron. iii, 19-24.) Even 011 
the supposition that the line is not broken as 
here given, it carries the period of composi- 
tion to the middle of the fourth century 
B. C. Since the author may be supposed to 
have witnessed the growth to manhood of the 
seven sons of Elioenai, we are brought down 
to the point where the Persian merged into 



THE CHRONICLES. 1 25 

the Greek period, as the mention of Jaddua 
the high priest, a contemporary of Alexander 
the Great, fixes the time of the composition of 
Ezra-Nehemiah. The author is supposed to 
have been a Levite of the post-exilian temple, 
and one of the singers, since he follows the 
activities of the Levites, and especially of the 
singers, with uncommon interest. 

The trustworthiness of Chronicles has been 
severely attacked by many of the critics. 
The author almost wholly neglects the north- 
ern kingdom, confining himself chiefly to 
Judah and Benjamin. In giving his genea- 
logical lists he dwells with special interest on 
Judah, Benjamin, and Levi. He hastens over 
the history of Israel until he comes to David ; 
and from then onward to the Exile he lays 
special stress upon the specifically religious 
portions of the history. He also makes the 
weal or woe of the people to have been de- 
pendent upon their religious loyalty and faith- 
fulness. This fact has suggested to some 
critics that he made history out of his own 
subjective prejudices to fit it to his theory. 
But to him religion was not so much morality 



126 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 

and justice — the kings were judged according 
to their attitude toward the false religions. 
His tendency to avoid mention of the faults 
of David, Solomon, and other early kings, and 
to glorify and idealize them, is attributed to 
the fact that a downtrodden race which has 
no hope for the future seeks to glorify its past. 
He enlarges the real numbers and quantities 
of men and of money; and, according to the 
taste of the period, delighted in naked lists of 
names. 

In view of all this, the frequent mention 
of his sources has not saved him from the 
suspicion of misrepresenting and manufac- 
turing history. Those who deny the histor- 
ical character of Chronicles assume that the 
author wrote his history to show the blessings 
which would attend a Levitically correct prac- 
tice of religion. Since they suppose his chief 
source of information to have been the canon- 
ical books of Samuel and Kings, they hold 
that he accomplished his end by the most 
unconstrained misplacements, additions, omis- 
sions, inventions, and misrepresentations. Ac- 
cording to Wellhausen he falsely represented 






THE CHRONICLES. 12 J 

the entire Priest's Code as in use prior to the 
Exile, whereas he maintains it was not then 
known, nor in existence. The answer of the 
more conservative critics to such charges 
can not here be given, except to say that they 
affirm that the work gives the most indubitable 
evidence of trustworthiness in its historical 
representations. 

Nevertheless its defenders suggest that 
caution must be employed in the construction 
of history from the data given by the Chron- 
icler. It is admitted that he wrote the his- 
tory of Israel from his own standpoint — the 
Levitical-priestly ; that in consequence where 
he wished to dwell upon a subject, he invol- 
untarily attributed views and customs to the 
past which belonged in reality to his own 
age; that his immense sums of gold and 
silver, sacrificial animals, and soldiers can not 
in all cases be accepted as facts, and that the 
errors arose not from the carelessness of tran- 
scribers, but, in some instances at least, from 
his love of large numbers; that the great 
festivals of David, Solomon, Hezekiah, and 
Josiah may have been decked out with splen- 



128 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 

dors known only in a later time; that the 
Hymn of David (i Chron. xvi), the longer 
speeches of David, Solomon, Abia, Asa, Je- 
hoshaphat, and Hezekiah, together with the 
warnings of the prophets Nathan, Obed, and 
others, may be free reproductions of tradi- 
tional utterances of these men. Such a re- 
production they defend on the ground that 
John did the same with the words of Jesus; 
and they deny that they lose their historical 
worth thereby, any more than do the speeches 
found in Thucydides or Livy,- which are sub- 
ject to the same criticism. Of intentional 
misrepresentation they do not accuse him. 
They conclude that where the older historical 
books give a record of an event recorded in 
Chronicles, the former is to be preferred; but 
that, except where there are special reasons 
to the contrary, what is peculiar in the record 
of the Chronicles may be accepted as a con- 
tribution to the history of Israel. 






Part III. 

THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

§25. General History of New Testa- 
ment Criticism. 

It was under the influence of rationalism 
that the critical treatment of the New Testa- 
ment began. Semler, 1 in a series of treatises 
concerning the free investigation of the canon 
(1 771-1775), gave up the doctrine of inspira- 
tion, and made the canonicity of the books 
of the New Testament independent of their 
authorship. The Bible contained elements 
which were not only erroneous, but positively 
injurious ; others which were only local and 
temporary; and still others which tended to 
moral improvement, or to real spiritual ben- 
efit. The last only was the Word of God. As 
the early Church had decided upon the books 
which should be regarded canonical, and as 
Luther had exercised his own judgment in 
the valuation of the individual books, so the 

1 Abhandlungen von freier Uiitersuchung des Ration. 
9 129 



130 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 

Church of his (Semler's) day must judge 
which portions of the Bible it would admit 
into the canon. 

The next important step was that of Eich- 
horn. 1 Tradition being no longer the guiding 
principle of the critics, it became necessary to 
substitute such hypotheses as would account 
for the facts. Eichhorn supposed that the pe- 
culiarities of the three synoptical Gospels 
were capable of explanation on the hypothesis 
that they had for their groundwork an origi- 
nal Greek Gospel (Urevangelium). Gieseler 2 
(1818), on the other hand, proposed to explain 
all the facts on the supposition that the 
Gospel as preached by the different apostles 
became more or less stereotyped in their own 
and their hearers' memories, and, when re- 
duced to writing by the different evangelists 
for different purposes, must come forth with 
just such similarities and divergences as these 
Gospels exhibit. 

Schleiermacher 3 sought, as early as 181 1, to 



1 Einleitung in das Neue Testament. 

2 Die Bntstehung der schriftliclieu Evangelien. 

3 Darstellung des Theologischen Studiunis. 



NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM. 131 

guide criticism into a new channel. He pro- 
posed to place the reader of to-day in the po- 
sition of the original reader of the Gospels. 
In order to this, he discussed first the history 
of the canon and the text, and then the origin 
of the individual books. For this purpose a 
knowledge of the literature of the period, and 
of the class of readers for which it was in- 
tended, was necessary. His was the boldest 
judgment yet uttered concerning the genuine- 
ness of the various books of the Bible. He 
rejected as decidedly spurious the synoptical 
Gospels — which he held were composed subse- 
quent to the Apostolic Age — 1 Timothy, 2 
Peter, and Revelation ; while of doubtful gen- 
uineness were Ephesians, 2 Timothy, James, 
and 2 and 3 John. 

By this time the historical-critical method 
of Biblical investigation was fairly established ; 
and distinguished services were rendered by 
De Wette, Credner, Volkmar, and Neudecker. 
In the defense of traditional views, Guericke, 
Olshausen, and Neander -wrote — the latter, 
however, making more concessions than the 
former two. 



132 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 

With the Tiibingen school, whose founder 
was Ferdinand Christian Baur, 1 New Testa- 
ment criticism passed from its literary to its 
historical stage. Baur taught that the place 
of each New Testament document in the de- 
velopment of the history of primitive Chris- 
tianity must be ascertained in order that 
criticism may fulfill its mission. Such an 
investigation would involve the question as to 
the circumstances which called forth the book, 
its purpose, and its doctrines. As he studied 
early Christianity, he thought he saw a pro- 
found conflict between the Christianity of 
Peter and that of Paul. This he thought was 
traceable through all the Christian literature 
of the first century, and far into the second. 
By it he proposed to explain the form which 
the old Catholic Church took in the second 
half of the second century. It was also the 
touchstone by which he tested the genuine- 
ness of all the New Testament books. The 
four letters — i and 2 Corinthians, Romans, 



1 His views are found in full in his "Paulus," and 
in " Das Christeutliums u. die Christliche Kirche der 
drei ersten Jahrhunderte." 



NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM. 1 33 

and Galatians — were Pauline, and represented 
Paul's own views. The other books were all 
written with a tendency to bring out the unity 
which lay beneath the supposed Petrine and 
Pauline antagonisms. The single exception 
to this was the Apocalypse, which represented 
the anti-Pauline view. Strauss 1 is perhaps 
better known in this country than Baur, and is 
generally regarded as belonging to the Tubin- 
gen school ; but, as a matter of fact, he was 
far less profound than his preceptor, Baur, 
and scarcely held or promulgated any of the 
opinions peculiar to him. Strauss dealt rather 
with the life of Jesus than with the questions 
of Biblical criticisms, the trustworthiness of 
the record rather than the authorship of the 
documents. Strauss regarded the incidents 
related in the Gospels as "myths;" Baur sup- 
posed the Gospels to have been written for the 
purpose of aiding the harmonization of Pauline 
and Petrine Christianity. Strauss hurried into 
print, while Baur, his preceptor, was painstak- 
ingly studying the whole question. But the 
Tubingen school had many able champions, 
^eben Jesu. 



134 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 

among whom were Zeller, 1 Schwegler, 2 and, for 
a time, Ritschl. Bruno Bauer will be men- 
tioned under the latest criticism of the four 
principal Pauline epistles (§38). 

We can not here mention the able argu- 
ments which the orthodox party brought to 
bear against the Tubingen school; but such 
men as Dietlein, Thiersch, Ebrard, and Lech- 
ler must at least find mention. So, from less 
orthodox sources, Bleek, Ewald, Meyer, Reuss, 
and Hase powerfully assisted in overcoming 
the new view. And even from within the 
school itself divisions arose. Hilgenfeld 3 soon 
took an independent position. But especially 
was it Ritschl l who broke the strength of the 
Tubingen school by proving that Baur had 
missed the real facts in the historical develop- 
ment of the old Catholic Church ; that, except 
for a short time, there was no such conflict as 
Baur saw so prominent in the first two cen- 

1 His views were advocated in the Theologischeu 
Jahrbiicher. 

2 Das Nachapostolisehe Zeitalter. 

3 First in the " Zeitschrift fur wissenschaftliche Theo- 
logie," and later (1S55) in " Das Urchristeutlmm." 

4 In Die Entstehung der Altkatholischen Kirche (2d 
edition, 1857). 



NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM. 1 35 

turies; that Baur's assertion that to admit 
the reality of miracles is uuhistorical, is in- 
correct; and that the only true method of 
judging Christianity is not to place it under a 
secular measuring-rod, but to estimate it from 
the religious standpoint. The principal liv- 
ing representatives of the Tubingen school 
are O. Pfleiderer 1 and C. Holsten, 2 although 
neither of them adheres strictly to Baur's 
views. 

S26. Present-day New Testament 
Criticism. 

Weiss"' divides the theologians of to-day, 
so far as they have to do with New Testa- 
ment questions, into the newer critical school 
and those whose tendencies are apologetic or 
defensive. Under the former he ranks Har- 
nack, Weizsacker, Pfleiderer, Mangold, H. J. 
Holtzmann, Immer, Wittichen, Iyipsius (de- 

1 See his views set forth in his " Paulinismus " and his 
" Das Urchristeuthum." 

2 His opinions are fully given in " Zuni Evangelium 
des Petrus und Paulus," " Das Evangelium des Paulus," 
and " Die drei urspringlichen, noch ungeschriebenen 
Evangelieu." 

3 Einleitung in das Neue Testament. 



136 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 

ceased), Overbeck, Paul Schmidt, W. Briick- 
ner, Seuffert, von Soden. Among the former 
he mentions Beyschlag, Grimm, Klopper, 
Weiss (Bernhard), L. Schulze, Hofmann (de- 
ceased), Th. Schott, Luthardt, Klostermann, 
Zahn, Grau. In fact, there is no classifica- 
tion better than this; although, especially in 
the latter, there are vast differences. 

The newer critical school rejects Baur's 
theory of an opposition between a Petrine 
and a Pauline Christianity, and hence finds 
the true explanation of old Catholicism else- 
where; but it maintains many of the pre- 
sumptive results of the Tubingen school, and 
is governed by its methods and presupposi- 
tions in a large measure. In addition to 
Paul's four principal epistles, they generally 
accept also Philemon, Philippians, and 1 Thes- 
salonians; but, in contradiction to the Tu- 
bingen school, they reject the Apocalypse. 
They do not accept as belonging to the apos- 
tolic age the so-called catholic (general) epis- 
tles, nor Hebrews; reject the fourth Gospel 
most decidedly ; and even deny that the apostle 
John ever lived in Asia Minor. 



THE SYNOPTIC QUESTION. 1 37 

Among the apologists, the school of Hof- 
mann, to which Luthardt, Zahn, and Grau 
belong, is distinguished by great conservatism 
in the criticism of the New Testament. This 
school is, in a large measure, influenced in its 
criticism by dogmatic considerations. It re- 
gards every book in the canon as absolutely 
necessary — the Scriptures as an organic whole ; 
and holds to the doctrine of inspiration, not 
so much of each book as of the canon as a 
whole. Beyschlag and Weiss, on the other 
hand, are much freer in their treatment of the 
canon and the individual books, and have no 
respect for dogmatic considerations in the 
conclusions they reach. Yet, compared with 
the critical school, they may be called con- 
servative. 

§27. The Synoptic Question. 

A cursory examination of the first three of 
our canonical Gospels reveals a remarkable 
similarity in contents, as well as in language 
and in the order observed. This, rather than 
the fact of variations, has led to the critical 
theories with regard to their origin. Until 



138 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 

the beginning of this century the prevailing 
method of explanation was, that each evan- 
gelist used one or more of the Gospels pro- 
duced by the others. Griesbach supposed that 
Mark had abbreviated Matthew. Wettstein 
and others that Mark used Matthew; and 
Luke, both Matthew and Mark, Owen held 
that Mark epitomized both Matthew and Luke. 
Early in our century Eichhorn undertook 
to explain the similarities on the supposition 
that the authors of our canonical Gospels all 
based their work on an older Gospel (the so- 
called Primitive Gospel), used by the assist- 
ants of the apostles as a guide in their labors. 
This hypothesis found many supporters, but 
its details were so complicated and improbable 
as to render it impossible of final acceptance. 
Yet critics generally agree that his hypothesis 
pointed in the right direction. Taking the 
suggestion from Herder, Gieseler undertook to 
show that all the peculiarities of our synoptic 
Gospels can be best explained on the hypoth- 
esis that a comparatively fixed form of teach- 
ing concerning our Lord, his words and deeds, 
would naturally develop during the years in 



THE SYNOPTIC QUESTION. 1 39 

which the apostles preached the gospel in 
and about Jerusalem, and that this oral gospel 
formed the basis of the writings of our canon- 
ical Gospels. This hypothesis was favorably 
received, but soon discovered to be inadequate ; 
although it is not without supporters even in 
the present day. 

The Tubingen school introduced the next 
important change in the criticism of the 
synoptics. According to this school the Gos- 
pels were not intended to be histories, but 
bear the character of "tendency writings," in- 
tended to help forward the union of the Petrine 
and Pauline parties. The Gospels, them- 
selves, however, bore but little evidence of 
such a strife as Baur had supposed to exist 
for more than a century after the ascension of 
Christ. Hence he supposed them to have 
been written at a date late enough to allow . 
the dispute to have almost died out (130-170). 
With the fall of the Tubingen school fell also 
this hypothesis concerning the origin of the 
synoptic Gospels. 

Early in this century IVeisse 1 argued that 

1 Iu his Bvaiigelische Geschichte. 



140 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 

the testimony of Papias concerning a Gospel 
by Mark is applicable to our canonical Mark, 
and that hence we have here an original 
source from which the two other Gospels 
(synoptic) drew much of their matter. Bern- 
hard Weiss holds to a document still earlier 
than our Mark, and known to him. This 
document he supposes to have contained a 
collection of our Lord's sayings, and also a 
collection of incidents in our Lord's life. 
Holtzmcinn^ thinks these two were distinct 
sources, and that our Mark was dependent 
upon the collection of incidents, while Mat- 
thew and Luke were dependent upon it and 
the collection of sayings of our Lord. It will 
be impossible, however, to give here an ac- 
count of the multitudinous theories which 
have been advanced to clarify the synoptic 
question. For details the reader is referred to 
the larger Introductions. 



1 See his views in full in his " Hand-Commentar zum 
Neuen Testament." Erster Band. 



the gospel of matthew. 141 

§28. The Gospee of Matthew. 

The early Church held this Gospel for the 
first. Holtzmann, although denying that in 
its present form it was written by Matthew, 
admits that it was not without good reason 
that the early Church held it to be the work 
of the apostle whose name it bears. Papias 
said that Matthew wrote a book of sayings of 
our Lord in Hebrew. Some think this does 
not exclude the supposition that his book also 
contained records of the doings of our Savior. 
Many competent critics think it probable that 
our canonical Matthew is simply a translation 
of the Hebrew Gospel. Others think that 
the author of our Matthew drew from the 
apostolic document. Weiss thinks that he 
drew from the apostolic document and from 
Mark. It is plain that those who are de- 
scribed in the last two sentences deny the 
apostolic origin of our Matthew, although 
they may credit it with entire trustworthiness. 
Those who deny the apostolic origin of the 
first Gospel, but derive it from an apostolic 
" source," suppose that the first two chapters 



142 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 

did not belong to the " source." With some 
it is doubtful at what date the u traditions" 
arose which they record. 

The majority place the date of the Gospel 
about 70 A. D. ; but Baur fixed it at 130, some 
of his followers going back still earlier to 
105-110. Opinions are divided as to the na- 
tivity of the author. Holtzmann argues from 
chapter xix, 1, that the author lived in the coun- 
try east of the Jordan. Weiss argues in favor 
of the non-Palestinian residence of the author, 
because he explains the names Immanuel and 
Golgotha, and the prayer of Christ on the 
cross (i, 23 ; xxvii, ^ 46); because he did not 
know the original home of the parents of 
Jesus, which he infers from chapter ii, 22 ; and 
because he supposes Matthew to have drawn 
from Mark, who was not an eyewitness; 
whereas, had he lived in Palestine, he would 
have gone direct to still living eyewitnesses. 
Others argue with equal cogency for the Pales- 
tinian nativity and residence of the author. 
It is pretty generally conceded that it was 
written for Jewish readers, although some 



THE GOSPEL OF MARK. 1 43 

think they were Jews who lived in the midst ot 
Gentile populations, and not in Palestine. 

§ 29. Thk Gospel of Mark. 

The contents of this Gospel are nearly all 
fonnd in Matthew, and, for the most part, in 
essentially the same order ; but while Mat- 
thew undertakes to show that Jesus is the 
son of Joseph and the son of David, the Mes- 
siah of prophecy, Mark's purpose is to exhibit 
Jesus as the Son of God. Matthew seems to 
be written for Jewish, and Mark for heathen 
Christians. 

Mark has sometimes been taken for an epit- 
ome of Matthew, sometimes for an epitome of 
the first and the third Gospel. Weiss thinks 
Mark's chief source was the collection of our 
Lord's words and deeds by Matthew — the so- 
called Logia document; Hilgenfeld, that it was 
a tendency document, designed to harmonize 
doctrinal differences between parties; Volk- 
mar, 1 to show that Paulinism began as early 
as the time of Christ. Some think this not 



1 In Marcus und die Synopsis. 



144 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 

the Gospel written by Mark, but that it is 
based upon a Gospel by him. The majority 
are disposed to believe that this Gospel is the 
product of a pupil of Peter, as Mark was sup- 
posed to be. (i Peter v, 13.) 

The same arguments which would fix the 
date of Matthew prior to the destruction of 
Jerusalem hold good for Mark. Those who 
regard Mark as the author, place it about that 
time. Those who hold to a primitive Mark, 
upon which our Mark is based, or maintain 
that ours is made up of extracts from the other 
Gospels, place the date variously from no to 
130 A. D. The genuineness of chapter xvi, 
9-20 has been challenged. It does not seem 
to fit well the former part of the chapter, and 
it is wanting in some of the oldest manu- 
scripts. 

§ 30. The Gospel of Luke. 

While there are many critics who deny 
that our third Gospel was written by the per- 
son whose name it bears, attributing it rather 
to Timothy, Titus, or some other person, the 
majority admit the truth of the constant tra- 



THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 1 45 

dition from the time of Irenaeus, that it was 
written by Luke. This is supported by the 
almost universally accepted theory that the 
Gospel was produced by one who had been 
closely associated with Paul, and represents 
his conception of the availability of the gos- 
pel of Christ for heathen as well as Jews. 
This is proved by the many coincidences be- 
tween the doctrinal presuppositions of the 
Gospel and Paul's well-known views, as well 
as by the harmony of its historical statements 
with Paul's record of the same events. 

The date of composition has been a point 
in controversy. The Tubingen school, re- 
garding it as a tendency document, intended 
to act as an irenic in harmonizing the sup- 
posed Pauline and Petrine factions, could 
not at first place it earlier than 130 A. D. 
Present-day adherents of that school place it 
about 100 A. D. Deniers of the principle of 
the Tiibingenites feel at liberty to place it 
anywhere between 63 and 80 A. D. The gen- 
eral supposition that Luke and Acts were 
written by the same person makes it probable 

that the former was written before the latter ; 

10 



146 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 

but the abrupt close of Acts with the account 
of Paul's imprisonment in Rome, has sug- 
gested that the Gospel must have been writ- 
ten prior to 64. This presupposes, however, 
that the Acts was intended to give a history 
of the apostles. Most critics deny this, and 
explain the book as an account of the spread 
of Christianity, and think that Luke was sat- 
isfied when he had traced its progress to 
Rome, the capital of the empire. In this 
case, the date with which Acts closes would 
give no hint of the date of composition ; and 
hence none of the date of the composition of 
Luke. This clue having failed, other critics 
decide from such criteria as they can find. 
Weiss, who regards Luke as the author, thinks 
it was written about A. D. 80. 

In the beginning of his Gospel, Luke sets 
forth his purpose to write an exact account of 
the life and deeds of our Lord. He intimates 
that others before him have not succeeded in 
this attempt. This suggested that he could 
not have meant to criticise Matthew and 
Mark ; and hence these Gospels were not in 
existence when he wrote. This would make 



THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 1 47 

Luke the first of our canonical Gospels in 
order of time. But in any case it is as- 
serted that he proposed to profit by the defects 
of his predecessors; and hence he must have 
had "sources" at his command. What these 
were, is the question. Weiss thinks he had 
the apostolic document of Matthew, and that, 
besides, he employed Mark and another source 
traceable, but whose authorship is unknown. 
Others who adhere more closely to the theory 
of Gieseler (§ 27), lay greater stress upon the 
information he received from eyewitnesses of 
the life of our Lord, and from Paul. 

Attacks have been made upon the historical 
trustworthines of this Gospel; but they are 
little emphasized in the present day. Luke 
assures us that his purpose was to write accu- 
rately, so that Theophilus might be confirmed 
in the teaching he had received. The integ- 
rity of the book is universally conceded at 
present. Some reject the statements of the 
first two chapters, explaining their admission 
into the book as best they may. The chief 
obstacle to their acceptance is the miracles 
they record. 



148 the higher criticism. 

§31. The Acts of the Apostles. 

The connection of this book with the fore- 
going makes it convenient to treat it here in- 
stead of after John. It is generally, though 
not universally, agreed that the author of the 
Gospel also wrote the Acts, and that it was 
Luke who wrote both. Some, however, hold 
that Luke wrote the " we " portions — that is, 
the portions in which the author writes in the 
first person plural — and that this was made in 
part the basis of the book, especially of the 
latter part, by another author. 
I . As to the sources of information, critics 
generally hold that they were mostly written. 
This supposition is absolutely necessary to 
those who believe it to be a production of the 
second century. But while few think oral 
sources sufficient to explain the peculiarities 
of the Acts, many believe that Luke received 
much of his information from those who were 
eyewitnesses of the events recorded. The 
majority, therefore, believe in the trustworthi- 
ness of the record. The miraculous nature of 
many of the events has only caused its cor- 



THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. 1 49 

rectness to be doubted by those who reject all 
miracle. The Tiibingenites held that the 
facts were distorted to suit the purpose of the 
author, which was to harmouize the Pauline 
and Petrine factions. Paul's sayings and do- 
ings were modified to give them a Petrine 
coloring; and Peter's, to conform them more 
nearly to the standard of Paul. But even 
followers of the Tubingen school now largely 
discredit this idea. Other questions will be 
found mentioned in the preceding section. 

§32. The Gospel of John. 

The Johannean question briefly stated is 
this: The synoptic Gospels present a picture 
of Christ so different from that of John that 
many have felt that if the former are true to 
the facts the latter is false, and vice versa. 
The doubt has also been strongly felt of the 
possibility of John's having written both the 
Gospel and the Apocalypse. 

The first to raise any serious doubt of the 
genuineness of the Gospel was Bretschneider} 
In one form or another he presented about 

x In his " Probabilia." 



150 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 

all the objections that have ever been pro- 
duced. Among the principal opposers of 
Bretschneider was Schleiermacher. He argued 
that the Synoptics and John are respectively 
to Jesus what Xenophon and Plato were to 
Socrates. In both cases the former concerned 
themselves rather with externalities, and the 
latter with the true inner personality of their 
masters. With Baur a new form of criticism 
began. He attempted to show that the whole 
Gospel is simply an attempt to construct the 
history of Jesus in accordance with the Logos 
idea of the prologue. In this way he ex- 
plained the divergences of the fourth from 
the first three Gospels, which far more nearly 
represented to him the real history. Hence 
it was not written by an apostle; and it was 
not written — as we might expect of John — 
from the Judaistic-legalistic standpoint, but 
from that of the heathen-universalistic Chris- 
tian. Since it presupposes the entire develop- 
ment of Christianity to the middle of the sec- 
ond century, it could not have been written 
until after that time. 

The defenders of the genuineness of the 



THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. 151 

Gospel have generally rejected all attempts to 
show that it is genuine only in parts, and 
have insisted that it is wholly reliable history ; 
but there are those who have admitted that 
John may have unintentionally colored the 
utterances of Jesus according to his own sub- 
jectivity, although giving them in the main 
as they fell from the lips of our Lord. Such 
was the view held by Luthardt} Weizsdcker 
holds essentially to this opinion; but denies 
that it was written by John, attributing it to 
one of his disciples. 

At the present time there is a tendency 
on the part of the opposers and defenders of 
the genuineness to come still nearer together. 2 
The opposers place the date earlier than for- 
merly, and allow more of historical trust- 
worthiness; the defenders grant that John 
wrote his Gospel under the influence of the 
impression which Jesus made upon him 
throughout a long life. This is the opinion 
of such men as Luthardt (as before stated), 



1 Das Evangelium nach Johannes. 

2 Schurer, Ueber den gegenwartegen Stand der Johan- 
neischen Frage. 



152 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 

Grau, Beyschlag, and Weiss. Others there 
are, however, who defend the genuineness, 
trustworthiness, and integrity of the Gospel 
in every sense of the word. Among these 
may be mentioned Godet and Keil. To such 
thinkers, John is not theology clothed in bio- 
graphical or historical form, but genuine his- 
tory. They deny any contradiction between 
John and the Synoptics, and stand firmly by 
the reality of all John's representations. 1 

§33. The Johannean Epistles. 

The majority agree that the Gospel and 
First Epistle of John were written by the 
same person. Of course the Tubingen school 
deny that the author is John, and place the 
date of both comparatively late in the second 
century. One of the critical questions has 
been: Which is earlier, the Gospel or the 
First Epistle? Baur decided in favor of the 
Gospel, because he thought the Epistle so 
poor in thought. Hilgenfeld, on the other 

*A most excellent defense of John will be found in 
Nast's forthcoming volume on the fourth Gospel, ad- 
vance sheets of which have been kindly placed at our 
disposal. 



THE JOHANNEAN EPISTLES. 1 5 3 

hand, took opposite ground, because of the 
riches he saw in the Epistle. Both as- 
sumed that the earlier one must be the richer 
in thought. The newer critical school deny 
the Johannean authorship of both Gospel and 
Epistle. 

Bretschneider was the first of importance 
to deny the Johannean authorship of the 
Epistle. Both he and Paulus attributed it to 
John the Presbyter. The principal reason they 
assigned was the nature of the error referred 
to in the Epistle. This they supposed to be 
the error of Docetism. Since that time, there 
has been a dispute among the critics as to 
what the error really was which John con- 
demned. Perhaps the majority have now 
reached the conclusion that the false doctrine 
attacked was that of Cerinthus, who taught 
that the heavenly iEon, Christ, united him- 
self with Jesus at his baptism, and separated 
from him before his death. The Cerinthian 
error was promulgated during the lifetime of 
John the apostle. 

Even those who in the present day deny 
the Johannean authorship of the First Epistle, 



154 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 

affirm that it rests on Johannean traditions, 
which had continued to make themselves felt 
to a very late date. Baur thought he found in 
the Epistle evidences of the influence of 
Montanism. In any case, the supposition 
that the Epistle was written to confute error 
is erroneous, as one can see in the very first 
verses of the first chapter, where the purpose 
of the letter is named. Some have supposed 
the Epistle to have been written in Patmos, 
but the majority place it in Ephesus. 

Even the Second and Third Epistles have 
been made to bear the character of tendency 
writings by the Tubingen school. Baur sup- 
posed that they were written to the Monta- 
nistic portion of the Roman congregation. 
He attributed them to a third John, only the 
Apocalypse, according to him, being the work 
of the apostle. Opinions have differed decid- 
edly as to the real authorship of the epistles 
among those who deny them to John. Per- 
haps the majority favor the authorship of the 
Presbyter John. This they support particu- 
larly by the fact that, while the author of the 
Gospel and the First Epistle nowhere names 



THE BOOK OF RE VELA TION. 1 5 5 

himself, here the author calls himself the 
Presbyter. One of the critical questions here 
is, whether the Second Epistle is addressed to 
a Christian matron or to a congregation under 
the figure of a matron. The generally ac- 
cepted opinion is the former. Hilgenfeld 
thinks it was written for the entire Christian 
Church. The majority of those who attribute 
these letters to the Apostle John think they 
were written about the same time, and at 
Ephesus. Weiss thinks they were written 
prior to the First Epistle. 

§ 34. The Book of Revelation. 

While we are treating the other Johannean 
books, we depart in this — as in some other 
cases — from the canonical order of the books, 
so as to bring those by the same author to- 
gether. The principal questions with which 
we are concerned are those of the genuineness 
and the unity of the book. For the first time, 
we have to record that the Tubingen school 
adhered to the genuineness of a non-Pauline 
New Testament book. To them no book had 
so good testimony to its apostolic origin as the 



156 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 

Apocalypse ; but while they held John for 
its author, it is to be feared their chief mo- 
tive was to find an excuse for the rejection 
of the Johannean origin of the Fourth Gospel. 
According to the Tubingen critics, it was im- 
possible that both Revelation and Gospel 
should have been written by the same person. 
This opinion was shared by Schleiermacher, 
Neander, and others ; but these rejected the 
Apocalypse in the interest of the Gospel. 
Weizsacker thinks there is enough difference 
between Revelation and the Gospel to exclude 
a common authorship, but that there is also 
enough similarity to suggest it. Among those 
who have denied the Johannean authorship is 
Luther. On the other hand, the genuineness 
is defended by a powerful company, includ- 
ing the Tiibingenites. Truly, theology, like 
politics, sometimes makes strange bedfellows. 
Another class will not deny its Johannean 
character, although they dispute his author- 
ship. Volkmar thinks it was written by an 
antagonist of Paulinism, but in the spirit of 
John. Weizsacker thinks it was written by a 
pupil of John, toward the end of the first cen- 



THE BOOK OF RE VELA TION. 1 5 7 

tury, but subsequent to the apostle's death. 
Grau holds that it was written under the di- 
rection of the apostle. 

The unity of the book has also in recent 
years been vigorously attacked. V'olter 1 
thought he could distinguish five strata in 
the book: i. A primitive Apocalypse of the 
Apostle John in the year 65 or 66; 2. A sup- 
plement by the original apocalyptist in the 
year 68 or 69; 3. The first revision, in the 
time of Trajan; 4. The second revision, about 
129 or 130; 5. The third revision, about the 
year 140. Vischer 2 gave a new turn to the 
discussion when he announced the theory that 
Revelation is a Jewish Apocalypse, revised by 
a Christian hand, with additions. This he 
supports on the ground that the book contains 
unmistakably Jewish elements, together with 
others as distinctively Christian. Diisterdieck, 
while not accepting Vischer's theory, admits 
that it has in its favor the fact that Jewish 
Apocalypses were sometimes so revised by 
Christians, and thus found their way into 



1 Bntstehung der Apocalypse. 

2 Offenbarung Johannis. 



158 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 

congregational use. Sckon 1 assumed that the 
Christian author took up into his work Jew- 
ish oracles of the year 68-70. Pfliederer 
thinks there are distinguishable two Jewish 
apocalyptists and two Christian revisers. 
The second of the two former adopted an 
Apocalypse of the years 66-70. The first 
Christian reviser wrote under Domitian; the 
second, under Hadrian. Spitta 2 assumes that 
John Mark wrote an Apocalypse about A. D. 
70. This was combined, toward the end of 
the first century, with two Jewish Apocalypses, 
the first of which belonged in the time of 
Pompey; the second, in the time of Caligula. 

The time and place of composition are 
both in dispute among the critics, who are by 
no means at one as to whether it was written 
before or after the destruction of Jerusalem, or 
as to the place of composition. 

According to Volkmar, the false teachers 
of chapter xvi, 13, include Paul; and Volter 
identifies the Nicolaitans with the Mon- 
tanists. 



1 L'Origine de l'Apocalypse de Saint Jean. 

2 Die Offenbarung des Johannes. 



THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. 1 59 

It is also a disputed question whether the 
scenes follow each other, or are intended to 
be contemporaneous. The difference of view 
here gives rise to a great variety of methods 
of interpretation. The book is one which 
more than any other puzzles the critics. 

§35. The Epistle of James. 

The principal critical questions connected 
with this Epistle center about its relationship 
to the teachings of St. Paul. L/Uther thought 
its teachings were diametrically opposed to 
those of Paul; and as he accepted Paul's 
views alone as evangelical, he called James 
an epistle of straw. The Tubingen school 
also held that Paul's letters and James were 
contradictory, and saw in this a proof of the 
supposed antagonism between Paul and the 
original apostles ; although it did not fit into 
their scheme to make the Apostle James the 
author of the Epistle. The majority of crit- 
ics to-day do not see any essential contradic- 
tion between James and Paul. There is one 
class who regard the Epistle as having been 
written so early that it could not possibly 



160 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 

have been intended to antagonize the Pauline 
doctrine of justification, since that doctrine 
had not yet spread very far, or perhaps had not 
even been promulgated. According to them, 
James saw in the Jewish Christians scattered 
abroad among the Gentile populations certain 
defects both in the theory and practice of 
Christianity, and these his letter was written 
to correct. Others think that the Epistle was 
written after the doctrines of Paul had be- 
come well known, and that the author of the 
Epistle had full knowledge of them. Of 
these that portion who deny any purpose to 
antagonize St. Paul or his doctrine, suppose 
that James intends merely to guard his read- 
ers against false applications of the Pauline 
doctrine. 

§36. First and Second Peter. 

Among the methods employed to cast 
doubt upon the genuineness of First Peter 
has been the attempt to show that Peter never 
was so situated that he could have learned 
the Greek. Another point much disputed is 
as to the relation between First Peter and 



FIRST AND SECOND PETER. l6l 

Eptiesians. The coincidences are acknowl- 
edged by all; but some think First Peter was 
influenced by Ephesians; others hold pre- 
cisely the reverse. It is also a question 
whether the Epistle is written to Jewish 
Christians, to heathen Christians, or to mixed 
congregations of Jews and heathen. The 
Tubingen school held First Peter to be spuri- 
ous, and attributed it to the purpose of the 
author to unite the divided parties in the 
Church. According to their theory the Epis- 
tle, pretending to come from Peter, testified 
to the correctness of Paul's teaching. Of 
course since, according to their view, it was 
not written by Peter, but by a member of the 
Pauline party, it was a pious fraud. 

The genuineness of Second Peter has been 
far more generally doubted than that of the 
First Epistle. The principal source of doubt, 
so far as the internal evidence is concerned, 
is the relationship it sustains to the Epistle 
of Jude. The dependence of one upon the 
other is universally admitted. Opinions di- 
vide as to whether Second Peter drew from 
Jude or the reverse; but defenders of the 



1 62 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 

genuineness deny that Peter could not or 
would not have drawn from Jude. The fact 
that he touches upon matters wholly unmen- 
tioned in the first letter the defenders explain 
on the supposition that a considerable time 
elapsed between the composition of the two 
epistles, during which those addressed in both 
letters had undergone a change of situation. 
The late adoption into the canon of the New 
Testament, which has caused many to doubt 
its Petrine origin, is generally explained on 
the supposition that it was written too near 
the death of the apostle to obtain circulation 
during his lifetime, and hence, from the be- 
ginning, lay under the shadow of unjust 
doubt. 

§37. The Epistle of Jude. 

This is another of the New Testament 
books which Luther rejected; but he was 
governed by the traditional view that the 
author meant to represent himself as an apos- 
tle; whereas, to Luther, it was apparent that 
he was not an apostle. Critics now almost 
universally admit that the letter does not in 



THE EPISTLE OF JUDE. 1 63 

any way make the claim to having been writ- 
ten by an apostle, bnt by Jude, the brother of 
James, the brother of our Lord. He was also 
governed in his opinion by its apparent rela- 
tion of dependence upon Second Peter, and 
by its quotation from the Book of Enoch. It 
has been often supposed that the false teach- 
ers condemned by Jude are those prophesied 
by Peter, and hence that Jude must be later 
by some years than Second Peter; but others 
are of the opinion that Jude does not attack 
false doctrine, but a misapplication of Pauline 
truth. It is admitted on all sides that the 
citation from the Book of Enoch gives us no 
data by which to determine the time of com- 
position; and critics to-day take no offense, 
as Luther did, at the citation of unscriptural 
books by a Scripture writer. The newer crit- 
ical school generally, however, deny that it 
was written by Jude, the brother of James, 
and place the date of composition about A. D. 
140. They think it professes to antagonize 
the Gnosis of Carpocrates, and the Antino- 
mian Gnosis of the second century in general. 



164 the higher criticism. 

§38. Galatians, Romans, and First and 
Second Corinthians. 

Until very recently criticism had, almost 
without exception, admitted the genuineness 
of these four principal Pauline epistles. F. C. 
Baur, the founder of the Tubingen school, de- 
clared that the evidence of their Pauline ori- 
gin was so indubitable that it was unthink- 
able how criticism could ever raise doubts 
concerning them. In fact, these and the Rev- 
elation of St. John were the necessary founda- 
tion of their theory that there was a profound 
disharmony between Pauh*&nd the primitive 
apostles. Bruno Bauer's 1 attempt to cast 
doubt upon the genuineness of these epistles 
received no countenance whatever. The first 
in recent years to attack their genuineness 
were the two Hollanders, Pierson and Loinan. 
Pierson 2 says it is natural to suppose that so 
remarkable a personage as the Paul of Gala- 
tians is a fiction of a member of the ultra- 



^vritik der Pauliuischeu Briefe. 

2 De bergrede en andere Synoptische Fragmenten, 
and in various articles. 



THE PAULINE EPISTLES. 1 65 

Pauline school, and not a reality. But it re- 
mained for the Swiss theologian, Rudolf 
Steck, 1 to develop this doubt systematically. 
He attempts to prove that none of the four 
principal letters attributed to Paul is from 
his pen; and, in fact, that we have nothing 
which was written by him. His method of 
investigation is far more scholarly, calm, and 
respectful than Bruno Bauer's, and, unlike him, 
he maintains the historic personality of Jesus 
Christ. According to his view it is improper 
to assume the genuineness of these four let- 
ters, and it is the duty of criticism to apply 
the same principles to their investigation that 
are applied to the smaller Pauline epistles. 
The importance of the problem thus raised 
demands comparative fullness of treatment. 

Steck affirms that we must either allow 
that Paul wrote more than these four principal 
letters, or else deny that we have anything 
whatever from his pen. He argues that since 
Revelation — which was one of the main sup- 
ports of the Tubingen school — has recently 



1 In "Der Galaterbrief." He is well answered by Jo- 
hannes Gloel, Die jiingste Kritik des Galaterbriefes. 



1 66 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 

fallen into doubt, we must needs suspect, 
also, the other books acceptable to the Tiibin- 
genites. He sees in Galatians a dependence 
upon Romans and the Corinthian letters of 
such a kind that it is impossible they should 
all have been written by the same hand. He 
regards the Paulinism of Galatians as far more 
advanced than that of Romans. While the 
Tubingen school rejected the Acts as historic- 
ally untrustworthy, Steck regards its informa- 
tion concerning Paul as substantially reliable. 
He thinks the author of Galatians secured his 
information largely from the Acts, but distorted 
it in the interest of ultra-Paulinism. To his 
mind, the most senseless thing which could 
have been done at the time was what is re- 
lated in Galatians ii. The author of Gala- 
tians meant to deny that Paul ever made the 
smallest concession. The Paul of Galatians 
is not the real Paul, but an ideal of an ex- 
treme disciple of the great apostle to the 
heathen. In Galatians, which was composed 
about A. D. 1 20, is found not the Paulinism 
of Paul, but of his disciples. He thus sup- 
poses that the opposition between Paulinism 



THE PAULINE EPISTLES. 1 67 

and Jewish Christianity did not appear in its 
sharpest form during, but subsequent to, the 
lifetime of the apostles. 

His conclusions concerning Galatians he 
seeks to support by pointing out the evi- 
dences of a late composition for the Roman 
and Corinthian letters. He also affirms that 
the Christology of these letters is too advanced 
for the time of Paul, the argument being 
based on the presumption that the Christology 
of the primitive apostles was far simpler than 
that which prevailed seventy-five years later. 
In this connection, also, he draws an argu- 
ment from the similarity in many particulars 
of the Johannean and the Pauline Christology. 
From the fact, also, that the Old Testament 
citations are from the LXX version, he argues 
that the author could not have been acquainted 
with the Hebrew, which Paul of course under- 
stood. He also attempts to show that these 
four letters exhibit a literary dependence upon 
the synoptical Gospels, the Ascension of Moses, 
the fourth Book of Ezra, and the philosophical 
writings of Philo and Seneca. On the other 
hand, he denies that any writing prior to 



1 68 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 

A. D. 130 shows literary dependence upon 
our four letters. 

Steck is of the opinion that the antagonism 
between the Pauline and the primitive apos- 
tolic Christianity became greatly accentuated 
subsequent to Paul's death, and that the order 
of the development of this antagonism is 
marked by the order of the composition of 
these four epistles, which he makes Romans, 
First and Second Corinthians, Galatians. All 
the New Testament documents were produced, 
according to him, in the first half of the sec- 
ond century. The custom of attributing let- 
ters to celebrated men was so common in 
those days as to remove it from the category 
of the blameworthy. He even claims for his 
universal rejection of the genuineness of the 
New Testament documents an advantage equal 
to allowing all to be genuine. If all are spu- 
rious, none are spurious ; no single document 
falls into contempt in comparison with others 
because it is supposed to be spurious. 

In Germany, Steck's criticism has found 
only opposition ; but in Holland, where the 
movement had its start, it has found consider- 



FIRST AND SECOND THESSALONIANS. 1 69 

able favor. Professor Van Manen, of Leyden, 
goes much farther than Steck. He even ac- 
cuses him of too great conservatism in allow- 
ing historical trustworthiness to the Acts. 
With Steck, Paul is a great historical person- 
age. Van Manen does not deny his existence ; 
but he denies that we know anything very 
distinct concerning him. He suspects that 
we have to thank Gnosticism for the four 
principal letters of Paul. According to this, 
we would have absolutely no data but our 
own inner consciousness to teach us what 
Paul taught, or who he was. 

§39. First and Second Thessalonians. 

The common interpretation of the first 
three chapters of First Thessalonians in the 
days of Baur, according to which the apostle 
was supposed merely to have given expression 
therein to the feelings of his heart, suggested 
that no worthy motive could be discerned for 
the Epistle, and hence it was not apostolic. 
He also rejected the supposition of Pauline 
origin, because he thought it to be dependent 
upon the Acts, which he regarded as a post- 



I70 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 

apostolic production. The late date of the 
epistles has been suspected because of the 
celebrity of the congregation at the time of 
writing, and the supposed considerable num- 
ber of deaths which had occurred among the 
Thessalonian Christians. It has also been 
thought that both the doctrine and the lan- 
guage of the epistles are un-Pauline. 

The apocalyptical character of part of the 
Second Epistle has given occasion to consid- 
erable criticism. During the first century the 
opinion prevailed that although Nero had 
disappeared he was not dead, and that he 
would reappear from the Orient. The apoca- 
lyptical features of Second Thessalonians have 
been supposed to be constructed in some way 
according to this expectation. The one thing 
common to all these theories is, that Vespa- 
sian was that which "hindered," and who 
must be gotten out of the way before the 
Apocalypse could be fulfilled. Hilgenfeld 
took a different view. He thought he saw in 
the "falling away" a time of severe persecu- 
tion, and hence held that the letter was writ- 
ten during the reign of Trajan. Especially 



EPHESIANS. 171 

did he regard the " mystery of iniquity" as 
identical with the rising Gnosticism. 

The vast majority of the newer critical 
school maintain the genuineness of the First 
Epistle and reject that of the Second; but as 
there are names of the first order who can be 
quoted against the First, so can others equally 
strong be quoted in favor of the Pauline origin 
of the Second. 

§40. Ephesians. 

The principal argument which has been 
urged against the genuineness of this Epistle 
is its relationship to Colossians, which has 
been supposed to be that of dependence. It 
has been declared that Ephesians is an en- 
largement of Colossians without addition of 
thought, though with a redundancy of words. 
The letter has been accused of displaying a 
style of thought and language unworthy of 
the Apostle Paul. Many have found refer- 
ences to phases of Gnosticism not in exist- 
ence at the time of Paul. The Tubingen 
school found not only references to late Gnos- 
ticism, but even thought the writer was in- 



172 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 

nuenced by Montanus. They thought that 
the tendency of the letter was to unite the 
yet divided parties of the Church by a union 
of faith and love, and by mutual concessions. 
The relationship of the Epistle with First 
Peter has also been a subject of dispute. 
The similarity is not disputed; but the ques- 
tion is, whether Ephesians presupposed a 
knowledge of First Peter or First Peter a 
knowledge of Ephesians. Those who deny 
the genuineness are inclined to the former 
supposition. 

§41. Colossiaxs. 

Mayerhoff 1 was the first to dispute the 
genuineness of this Epistle. He thought that 
both the language and the teaching were un- 
Pauline. Baur saw in the Epistle the attempt 
of a pupil of Paul to bring the latter into 
harmony with the Logos doctrine of the 
Fourth Gospel. He thought that the — to 
him — evident references of the Epistle to 
Gnostic ideas proved it to have originated 
with one who was impregnated with Gnosti- 

1 In Der Brief an die Kolosser. 



PHILEMON. 173 

cism. Ewald supposed that Timothy wrote 
the letter after conversing with Paul, and 
thus explained the differences between this 
letter and others unquestionably Pauline. A 
still different form of criticism is that of Holtz- 
mann. He thinks 1 it possible to distinguish 
a genuine letter of Paul to the Colossians in 
our Epistle, which was imitated by the author 
of the Epistle to the Ephesians, and inter- 
polated by him so as to make up our present 
Colossians. This idea he supports by the at- 
tempt to show that Colossians lacks true 
connection of thought. Bleek supposed that 
Paul had dictated the letter to Timothy, 
which reminds one of Ewald's hypothesis 
mentioned above. 

§42. Philemon. 

The close relationship between this short 
letter and Colossians is universally admitted ; 
but Baur, who rejected Colossians, did not 
spare even this Epistle. He held it to be an 
undeveloped romance, intended to teach that 
compensation is found in Christianity for all 

1 Kritik der Epheser- und Kolosserbrief. 



174 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 

our earthly losses. Holtzmann thinks that 
verses 4-6 are additions by the author of the 
letter to the Bphesians. Weizsacker thinks it 
is intended as an illustrative representation of 
a new doctrine in reference to the Christian 
life, and that the very name Onesimus indi- 
cates the allegorical character of the letter. 
The genuineness of the letter is universally 
conceded to-day; and it is held to be one of 
many similar letters which Paul must have 
written to friends, but which have been lost. 

§ 43. Philippians. 

The Tubingen school led the way in pro- 
nouncing this letter spurious. A principal ar- 
gument was its supposed Gnostic ideas, and 
especially its presumed relation to the Valen- 
tinian Gnosticism. The usual "tendency" to 
conciliation of the divided parties of the 
Church is here assumed to exist ; and Schweg- 
ler even saw in the two women of chapter 
iv, 2, typical representations of the Pauline 
and anti-Pauline parties. One by one, how- 
ever, all critics have come over to the defense 
of its genuineness, except two or three. Yet 



THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. 1 75 

there are those who feel that there is a decided 
difference between the Paulinism of this and 
some of the older letters ; and this acknowl- 
edged fact is one of the arguments upon which 
the few who still reject the Epistle depend. 

§ 44. The Pastoral Epistles. 

The question of the genuineness of these 
epistles is interwoven with that of a second 
Roman imprisonment of the Apostle Paul. 
The majority maintain that there is no period 
in the life of Paul, as it is known to us, when 
these letters could have been written. Those, 
therefore, who would defend their Pauline 
origin, suppose that Paul was released from 
his first imprisonment, spent several years in 
travels and preaching, and was subsequently 
arrested, imprisoned, and executed. Such a 
supposition, they claim, has reasonable his- 
torical evidence in its favor. Others hold 
that the supposition of a second imprison- 
ment is insufficiently supported, and hence 
deny the genuineness of these epistles, or, if 
convinced on other grounds of their Pauline 
origin, undertake to show how the situation 



176 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 

presupposed in them fits into the, to us, 
known life of Paul. 

But the critics have found other difficul- 
ties in the way of accepting these epistles. 
Schleiermacher, who rejected only First Tim- 
othy, thought that Epistle was a compilation 
from Second Timothy and Titus. As criti- 
cism advanced, it was made plain that these 
letters attacked errors, and presupposed an 
advancement in ecclesiastical organization not 
hinted at in the other Pauline epistles. It 
was further admitted that the letters con- 
tained language and ideas peculiar to them- 
selves. Some undertook to show that they 
were composed by some immediate disciple of 
Paul, perhaps by Luke. 

Baur supposed that they were written in 
the second century in the name of Paul, for 
the purpose of lending the weight of his name 
to opposition against certain Gnostic heresies. 
He also supposed that it was the necessity 
of protection against these same heresies 
which made their recommendations concern- 
ing Church government necessary. Thus, ac- 
cording to his opinion, about the year 150 



THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 1 77 

A. D. furnished the only conditions out of 
which such letters could spring. 

The attempt to declare these letters spuri- 
ous has met with arguments so cogent on the 
other side that many have proposed to show 
that one or all of them are combinations of 
genuine Pauline documents, with additions by 
a pupil of the great apostle. Grau thinks 
this was done by the aid of remarks by Paul 
in letters written to their author, together 
with recollections of his utterances in con- 
versation. The attempts at discovering genu- 
ine elements in the Pastoral Epistles are a con- 
cession in favor of their Pauline origin. But 
there are few who would not admit that there 
are serious difficulties in supposing that the 
letters were written entire by Paul ; yet there 
are many who, recognizing these difficulties, 
refuse to reject the epistles on their account. 

§45. The Epistle to the Hebrews. 

The principal critical question in connec- 
tion with this Epistle pertains to the author- 
ship. Opinions continued to waver until 
Bleek — in his work of 1828, Der Brief an 



178 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 

die Hebraer — settled the question against the 
Pauline authorship for almost all German 
critics. Weiss (Lehrbuch der Einleitung in das 
Nene Testament) claims the following argu- 
ments as decisive against the Pauline author- 
ship : The letter gives no hint of a claim to 
have been written by Paul. It has no address 
at the beginning, as do all Paul's letters. The 
author does not call himself an apostle nor 
assert apostolic authority. Paul always in- 
sisted that he had not received his gospel 
from man, but direct from God; whereas, the 
writer of Hebrews (chapter ii, 3 f.) speaks of 
himself as a disciple of the primitive apostles. 
The whole plan of the letter is different from 
the Pauline. The doctrinal and the practical 
portions are not separated as by Paul, but 
interwoven. No New Testament document is 
so free from Hebraisms, and written in such 
pure Greek. While Paul struggles to express 
himself, the .language of Hebrews flows on 
with great smoothness ; and the evidences of 
rhetorical skill are in plain contrast with the 
dialectic brevity of Paul. The great apostle 
generally quotes from the LXX, but always 



THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 1 79 

betrays an acquaintance with the Hebrew 
text, while the writer of Hebrews evidently 
does not know the Hebrew. While Paul cites 
freely from memory, the writer of Hebrews 
quotes so accurately that it must have been 
copied from an open book. 

The fact that Paul argues against the per- 
manency of Judaism has led many to trace 
the Epistle to the Hebrews either to him or to 
one of his disciples. But the opponents of 
the Pauline origin of the letter point out that, 
while in the undoubted letters of Paul he as- 
sumes that, however perfect the law was, it 
was never intended to be more than tempo- 
rary, the writer of Hebrews argues that it 
is temporary because imperfect. They deny 
the identity of the doctrines of Hebrews 
with those found in Paul's letters. Having 
denied the Pauline authorship, recourse has 
been had to the supposition that it was writ- 
ten by a pupil of Paul, as Luke, or Clement 
of Rome ; others have thought of Mark or 
Aquila. Luther, and with him are many 
others, attributed the letter to Apollos. Weiss 
favors the hypothesis which attributes the 



180 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 

letter to Barnabas. He thinks that his birth 
in Cyprus would account for the evidences of 
Alexandrian culture found in the Epistle, 
while his Eevitical extraction explains his 
knowledge of the ritual service of the Jews, 
and the emphasis he places upon it. His 
companionship with Paul will explain the 
similarity of the Epistle to those of Paul. 
Many critics agree with Weiss. It is inter- 
esting to note that criticism now inclines to 
the opinion that the ritual service of Hebrews 
is not that of the temple, but of the taber- 
nacle. Especially does Von Soden insist on 
this view. 



Part IV. 

ESTIMATE OF RESULTS. 

§46. 
The purpose of this book is neither the 
defense nor the denunciation of the higher 
criticism; nor did its purpose admit of an at- 
tempt to refute the arguments by which the 
conclusions recorded were sustained. Our 
aim has been to state the critical problems 
and their proposed solutions, without any at- 
tempt to estimate their importance, correct- 
ness, or tendency. Yet there is one class of 
scholars whose opinions and arguments we 
have scarcely noticed in these pages. This, 
not because they were unworthy, but because 
they are already well known. We refer, of 
course, to the so-called traditionalists. But 
it must not be supposed, on the other hand, 
that we have recorded the conclusions alone 
of the skeptical school. We have given, so 
far as space would permit, the views of every 
grade of critic except the traditionalist. 

It is difficult to find any accurate designa- 

181 



152 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 

tion for the different schools of critics. To 
call them destructive only means that they 
destroy previous opinions, and overlooks the 
fact that, at the present day, no critic is con- 
tent with this; but all feel called upon to 
construct a theory in place of every one over- 
thrown. The same remarks apply to the 
terms negative and positive as distinctive of 
different schools of criticism. More nearly 
correct is the distinction of radical and con- 
servative. This, however, overlooks the fact 
that these two classes shade into each other 
until it would be almost impossible to classify 
under the one category or the other. It has 
also been proposed to apply the political des- 
ignations of Right, Left, and Center. But 
the Center always stands for a distinct policy; 
whereas those critics who may not be classed 
with the Right or Left, can hardly be said to 
be guided by principles distinct from the other 
two parties, but are rather influenced by a 
mixture of both. They are not as conserva- 
tive as the Right, nor as radical as the Left; 
but they do not differ from either so much in 
kind as in degree. Between the radical and 



EST IMA TE OF RESUL TS. 1 83 

the conservative, however, there is a distinct 
difference in kind, at least so far as principles 
are concerned. The former shrink from the 
supernatural in Scripture; the latter fully ad- 
mit it. The presumptive results of the latter 
might be — although generally they are not — 
as radical as those of the former, but they 
would not spring from radical principles. 
Here lies the really important difference be- 
tween the radical critic and the conservative. 
It is not in the conclusions they reach con- 
cerning the date and authorship of a book, 
but in the principles which lead them to their 
conclusions. In the one case we are robbed 
of our Book and our religion as well; in the 
other, the determinative criteria as to the 
Book leave our faith intact. Now, it is just 
here that the critic whom we would call 
mixed conservative-radical finds his place. 
He leans with his heart to the old faith, but 
his intellect leads him to cut away its founda- 
tions. And his results will be as mixed as 
his principles, since, in fact, he is governed in 
part by subjective considerations in what he 
retains of the Bible. 



184 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 

The general opinion perhaps is, that Ger- 
many is the home of the most radical criti- 
cism. If we compare Germany with England 
this may be true, and still more so if com- 
pared with America. For the staunchest de- 
fenders of the faith in Germany are as radical 
in their criticism of the Bible as onr most 
objectionable critics in America. But if we 
compare Germany with France, Switzerland, 
and Holland, we shall find the former far more 
conservative. 1 Not to mention the fact that 
the French, Swiss, and Dutch scholars are 
less original, it must be confessed that they 
are far less sober than their German neigh- 
bors. They seem to delight in extremes, per- 
haps under the impression that the more a 
position diverges from that commonly accepted 
the greater the evidence of scholarship. It is 
the usual error of imitators. The one who 
has made a profound investigation of any 
subject may reach erroneous conclusions; but 
he generally does not draw conclusions beyond 
the warrant of the facts he supposes himself 
to have discovered. 



1 $ee, for example, §38. 



ESTIMATE OF {RESULTS. 1 85 

As to the value of the conclusions reached 
by the critics it is difficult to express an opin- 
ion without incurring the risk of opposition. 
One thing is practically demonstrated in the 
preceding pages; namely, that the variations 
of opinion among the critics themselves are 
so great as to suggest the propriety of being 
in no haste to give up the traditional view of 
the date and authorship of the books of the 
Bible. There are very few positive conclu- 
sions upon which the critics agree among 
themselves, and it looks as though it were 
hopeless to expect agreement in the future. 
The arguments of one are ignored or opposed 
by another of equal ability, although they 
may agree in their conclusions. In other 
cases they agree upon the facts involved, but 
differ in their interpretation of them aii/i as 
to the inferences to be drawn. What seems 
to one the height of wisdom, appears to an- 
other the depth of absurdity. Such differ- 
ences among the giant intellects will cause 
the ordinary man to despair of reaching a 
safe conclusion, and will drive the practical 
man to adhere with greater firmness than ever 



1 86 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 

to what has been hitherto found a good work- 
ing hypothesis, allowing those who have time 
and inclination to concern themselves with 
these theoretical questions. 

On the other hand, while opposing with all 
our power the love of negation so prominent 
in many critics, and the skeptical principles 
of those who deny the supernatural in the 
Bible, a hearty welcome should be extended 
to all reverent Scriptural investigation, even 
though the investigator may not always reach 
the conclusions we accept. To cast the odium 
theologicum upon those who profoundly, mi- 
nutely, and in the proper spirit, study the 
Bible to elicit its secrets, would be to subject 
the world once more to the rulership of eccle- 
siastical authority. The reverent study of the 
Bible may be safely trusted to result in plac- 
ing it higher, not lower, in the esteem of men, 
to say nothing of the fact that it will freshen 
the soul with new revelations of truth from 
God. The great danger is that Bible study with 
scientific appliances will be content with its 
science, and not go on to the study of its practi- 
cal and spiritual truth for daily religious needs. 



ESTIMA TE OF RESUL TS. 1 8 7 

In estimating the value of the presumptive 
results of higher criticism, it must not only be 
remembered that most of them are merely 
presumptive, but also that there are men of 
profound learning who dispute almost the en- 
tire system of critical conclusions. They have 
weighed the arguments, and found them in- 
sufficient ; they have critically examined the 
Bible for themselves, and find the strongest 
evidences of the truth of the traditional 
theory. One might not be convinced that 
these scholars are right ; but, at least, one 
must admit that conclusions so supported by 
such men are entitled to respectful considera- 
tion. If we demand that the critics have a 
hearing, fair play requires that the opposing 
theories be not summarily discarded as un- 
scholarly, and especially in view of the fact 
that most of the traditional views have the 
weight of great critical names in their sup- 
port. Almost every new theory, however 
plausible in its entirety at first, is liable to 
subsequent modification, not to say rejection. 

It is a serious question whether the con- 
clusions of criticism may properly be left to 



1 88 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 

stand or fall by critical considerations alone. 
The Christian should not lightly yield a point 
which affects his faith, even when the ad- 
verse conclusion seems to be supported by 
sufficient argument. It is impossible for the 
genuine Christian to be indifferent as to the 
outcome of a dispute concerning his faith or 
its foundations. While it is not justifiable to 
give one's self up blindly to a creed, some 
things must be regarded as fixed if chaos is to 
be prevented in thought and life. No one can 
think without presuppositions. The presup- 
positions of Christianity may as scientifically 
be made the starting-point of inquiry as those 
of negation or infidelity. We must suppose 
the essentials of Christianity to be either true 
or not true. To attempt to leave this an open 
question is practically to deny, although it may 
be but tentatively, that Christianity is true. 

That form of argument, therefore, which 
appeals to Christ as authority on this subject 
is legitimate if properly employed. 1 If Jesus 
has spoken directly or indirectly on the ques- 

1 See in particular Ellicott's " Christus Comprobator." 



ESTIMA TE OF RESUL TS. 1 89 

tions at issue, the Christian must hear and 
heed. This nearly all admit, but some deny 
that he has spoken. There are critics who 
deny the omniscience and even the superiority 
of Christ's knowledge. They do not hesitate 
to say that Jesus was ignorant of the facts 
as to the authorship of the books of the Old 
Testament, and, with his fellow-countrymen, 
took their reputed for their real authors. 
Others suppose that he knew the facts, but 
that he merely accommodated his language 
to the belief of his hearers. The difficulty of 
this theory is that it does not recognize the 
frankness of speech which characterized the 
utterances of our Lord. Jesus was accus- 
tomed to expose, not to leave untouched, the 
errors of the Jews. Another form of this 
theory is, that by a metonymy Jesus may 
have merely spoken of a work by its reputed 
author. Whether all the references of our 
Lord to the Old Testament can be thus ex- 
plained is a question each must decide for 
himself. It is difficult to suppose that, with 
all the facts before him, he would have left 



190 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 

them in such egregious error as to their history 
as the higher critics suppose to have pre- 
vailed among the Jews. 

One of the most far-reaching conclusions 
of the critics is that the writers of the Bible 
erred in some or many of their statements of 
scientific, historic, and psychological fact. 1 
They deny the inerrancy of the Bible, and 
affirm that as long as these errors are not as 
to matters of faith and practice, the value of 
the Bible is not thereby diminished. They 
argue that the Bible is not a book of science, 
of history, or of philosophy, but of religion. 
It can be expected to be correct, therefore, 
only so long as it speaks on religious themes. 
More radical critics, however, do not hesitate 
to say that the Bible contains errors even in 
its religious and moral utterances, and that 
therefore reason must be employed in distin- 
guishing the true from the false. Some say 
that the Bible not only does not claim per- 
fection for itself, but even denies its own per- 
fection. 2 Most are content to account for any 

1 See Evans and Smith's " Biblical Scholarship and 
Inspiration." 

2 Mead, Supernatural Revelation. 



ESTIMATE OF RESULTS. 191 

imperfection in religious utterances on the 
ground that revelation was progressive, and 
that the earlier must of necessity be defective. 
Those who insist on error in these earlier re- 
ligious and moral precepts, either do not be- 
lieve in their true revelation, or explain by 
saying that God adapted his requirements to 
the stage of advancement of the people. 

Closely connected with the doctrine of in- 
errancy is that of complete and uniform in- 
spiration. Very few theologians, and none of 
the critics, believe to-day in verbal inspira- 
tion; but the majority conform their doctrine 
of inspiration to their idea of the degree of 
truth or error in the Bible. Many critics, 
however, remand the question of inspiration 
to dogmatics, and feel called upon to investi- 
gate the human conditions alone under which 
the various books of the Bible as well as the 
canon came into existence. They naturally 
come to ignore, in some cases to deny entirely, 
the Divine element in the origination of the 
Bible. 

Too much emphasis can not be laid upon 
the fact that, as the Bible is our only suffi- 



192 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 

cient rule of faith and practice, the chief study 
of the Book should ever proceed from and re- 
turn to this starting point. The question is 
legitimate as to what authority or value any 
portion of the Bible possesses. To some we 
may attach more, to other parts less ; but when 
we make such questions our principal business 
in the study of the Word of God, we pervert a 
means and make it an end. Criticism, so far 
as it concerns the Christian, is the handmaid, 
not the mistress. If criticism is practiced for 
the purpose of making the Bible more avail- 
able for practical, devotional use, it is a bless- 
ing. If practiced for its own sake, it is likely 
to lead astray. And as long as the Church 
concerns itself to practice the plain, unques- 
tioned teachings of the Bible, criticism, even 
of the most radical kind, can do no harm. 
The best preventive of spiritual defection is 
experience. Those who have tested the prom- 
ises of the Word, and found them true, are 
not likely to be disturbed by any assaults upon 
the Scripture, nor by any reconstruction of 
theories concerning it. But if any one is 
more inclined to defend the Bible against 



ESTIMA TE OF RESUL TS. 1 93 

criticism than to practice its precepts and 
enter into the inheritance of its promised 
blessings, he is in as dangerous a position as 
the most skeptical critic; for, although theo- 
retically a believer, he is practically an infidel, 
in spite of his belief. There is little danger 
from the most extreme conclusions of criti- 
cism as long as saints are common. There 
is far more to be feared from a dead ortho- 
doxy. The chief cause of alarm in connec- 
tion with Biblical criticism is not in its 
methods nor in its conclusions, but in its 
tendency to make the Bible a book to be 
studied, not practiced. Investigation there 
must be; and investigation should be so con- 
ducted that our faith may more perfectly con- 
form to the gospel of Christ, and our practice 
to the teachings of his Word. 



. Part V. 

IF THE CRITICS ARE RIGHT, WHAT? 

§47. The Doctrine of Inerrancy. 

The Christian thinker may assume either 
one of two attitudes towards those results of 
Biblical criticism which contradict traditional 
opinion — that of hostility, or that of accom- 
modation to the new situation. The former 
would require him to counteract argument 
with argument more cogent. The latter 
would not demand acceptance of the sup- 
posed results, but lead him to inquire what 
will be the consequences if, in the end, these 
results come to be accepted, and what sort of 
a Christianity that would be which would re- 
main. And this is an inquiry which the 
Christian must make. An unbeliever might 
entertain a purely scholarly interest in the 
problems of higher criticism; but the Chris- 
tian is conscious of a practical interest as 

well. There may be processes of scientific 

194 



THE DOCTRINE OF INERRANCY. 1 95 

investigation whose results are so remotely 
connected with our practical life that the 
Christian need have no care as to the out- 
come; but not such is the scientific investi- 
gation of the Scriptures. The Bible professes 
to be at least the record of God's revelation 
to man. If it does not contain trustworthy 
accounts of the words spoken, the deeds per- 
formed, and the spirit manifested by our Lord, 
then we have no account of these. If we 
have not here a portraiture of the effects 
which the forces of Christianity may naturally 
be expected to produce in the lives of the 
followers of Jesus, then we have no authori- 
tative standard of Christian life. The Chris- 
tian can not therefore divest himself of the 
consciousness of a profound personal interest 
in the results of critical inquiry into the ori- 
gin and authority of the Bible. The capa- 
bility in any one of such disinterestedness 
would prove that Christianity is of small value 
to him. 

The Christian, then, must interrogate criti- 
cism concerning its practical consequences. 
If he finds that it is sweeping away the foun- 



196 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 

dations of his faith, he must prevent it if he 
can, or failing, mourn over the ruins of his 
cherished beliefs. But if he finds the con- 
clusions of the critics consistent with the vigor 
and energy of Christian experience and life, 
even though requiring certain readjustments, 
he may let criticism go on its way with perfect 
unconcern, since, although it may cause him 
some inconvenience, it leaves him in posses- 
sion of what he holds dear. 

A comparatively limited knowledge of Bib- 
lical criticism will suffice to remind us that 
the critics are not all of one kind. Their 
principles, methods, and moral and intellec- 
tual qualifications differ greatly. It is custom- 
ary to classify them popularly as radical and 
conservative; but there is no such distinct line 
of demarkation as this classification indicates. 
It would be better to designate them as rad- 
ical, mixed, and conservative. We can not 
here consider the radicals, because it is plain 
that their principles would overthrow Chris- 
tianity in any of its present prevailing forms. 
Nor can we deal with the mixed class, since 
they have no harmonious principles of proced- 



THE DOCTRINE OF INERRANCY. 1 97 

ure, leaning toward the radicals with their 
judgment, and toward the conservatives with 
their hearts. We confine ourselves to the con- 
servatives, whom we further distinguish from 
those critics who always reach traditional con- 
clusions. 

The gist of the entire question is the author- 
ity of the Bible. It has always been the funda- 
mental principle of Protestantism that the 
Church is neither the first nor the final author- 
ity in matters of faith and practice. It is the 
very essence of rationalism to give to reason 
the final decision. 

There would seem to remain, therefore, to 
the non-rationalistic Protestant only the re- 
course of appeal to the founders of Christian- 
ity. But for such an appeal we must have a 
record in which we can confide. There are 
those, therefore, who affirm that the Bible is 
infallible in all its parts, and that any error 
would invalidate the entire Book; that while 
it is not a book of science, history, or psy- 
chology, whenever it touches these points its 
statements are absolutely correct. On the 
other hand, exceedingly conservative critics 



198 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 

admit the existence of errors in dates, num- 
bers, sequence of events, names of persons 
and places, statements of natural science, and 
the like. They admit that writers of the 
books of the Bible labored under misappre- 
hensions, and yet placed these upon record 
in conjunction with other statements of exact 
truth. Now, the question is, Do these con- 
cessions destroy the authority of the Bible? 
The rationalist says they do, and rejoices that 
the divine faculty of reason in man is to take 
the place of an infallible pope and an infal- 
lible book. The ultra-traditionalist agrees 
with the rationalist, with an "if;" but he de- 
nies the existence of the errors, and thus saves 
himself from the rationalist's conclusions. 

The conservative critic says that these 
concessions do not destroy the authority of 
the Bible, because they do not touch the 
points upon which the Bible professes to be 
authority. These critics distinguish between 
the religio-ethical and the other portions of 
the Bible, and affirm that the Bible was not 
given to teach science, history, etc., but to be 
a rule of faith and practice. They affirm 



THE DOCTRINE OF INERRANCY. 1 99 

that since no error has ever yet been demon- 
strated in those particulars in which revela- 
tion is necessary, we need not be troubled if 
there are occasional errors elsewhere. Most 
of them, moreover, claim that the demon- 
strable errors in history, etc., are so few or so 
unimportant that to reject the Bible on their 
account would be like rejecting the sun be- 
cause there are spots on it. In their princi- 
pal contention they are supported by the fact 
that the great evangelical Confessions make 
the Bible solely a rule of faith and practice. 
And this is what the Bible says of itself. 
(2 Timothy iii, 15-17.) Nor do the great 
Confessions assert inerrancy or infallibility 
except in matters of faith and practice. Two 
less important Creeds teach the absolute in- 
errancy of the Bible — the Creed of the New 
Hampshire Baptists (1833), which says that 
the Bible "has absolute truth, without any 
mixture of error for its matter;" and, by im- 
plication, the Confession of the Evangelical 
Free Church of Geneva (1848), which says: 
"We believe that the Holy Scriptures are en- 
tirely inspired of God in all their parts." 



200 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 

There are many who are not ready to give 

up their Bibles in the event that it should 

finally turn out that the zoology, botany, and 

other non-religious utterances of the Bible 

are demonstrated to be in some rare instances 

inaccurate. Such a conclusion is too weighty 

for such premises. We would not assert the 

existence of errors in the Bible; but if any 

one else does, we would deny the rationalistic 

conclusion that it is therefore a purely human 

book. 

§ 48. Inspiration. 

That the doctrines of the absolute inerrancy 
of the Scripture and of its inspiration are inti- 
mately connected is beyond doubt. And here 
again the principles of the radicals and those 
of the ultra-traditionalists are strangely par- 
allel. If you could convince the former that 
the Bible is an errorless book, they would at 
once admit its entire divine inspiration. The 
latter hold to its inerrancy, and hence to in- 
spiration in every part and particle. Con- 
sistently held, this theory can, at most, allow 
to the human subjects of inspiration the free- 
dom of amanuenses, who must write exactly 



INSPIRA T10N. 20 1 

what, and only what, is dictated. No room is 
left for the expression of the writer's individ- 
uality, and, of course, none for error. Very 
few would venture to-day to hold to inspiration 
in so extreme a form as this. It is now gener- 
ally admitted that the Scripture writings dis- 
play the individuality of their writers. The 
doctrine of inspiration may still maintain, how- 
ever, that these peculiarities do not amount 
to errors, and that any true doctrine of inspi- 
ration at least required that the Inspiring 
Spirit should guard the writers from record- 
ing any error. And this is, briefly stated, 
what the believers in inerrancy claim. In 
their judgment, the doctrines of inspiration 
and inerrancy stand or fall together. 

If the Book is not in all its parts the pro- 
duct of direct divine inspiration, it can not be 
inerrant. If, on the other hand, it is not in- 
errant in all its parts, it can not be inspired. 
If it is not inspired and inerrant in all its 
parts, it is in no part trustworthy. One ad- 
herent of this view illustrated his view by 
saying that Tray was a good dog, but because 
Tray was found in bad company he was shot; 



202 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 

that is, if we find truth mixed with error in 
the Bible, even the truth is rendered uncer- 
tain. This would certainly be the case if we 
supposed every part of the Bible to be equally 
inspired. For if the Holy Spirit could be sup- 
posed to inspire the proclamation of one error, 
we could not be sure, except by a subjective 
test, that he had not inspired much error. 
Now just here is where the conservative critic 
meets his chief difficulty. He can not believe 
in the absolute inerrancy of the Bible, although 
he finds it in the main so capable of bearing 
the most exact scrutiny as to indicate the 
greatest care on the part of the authors. 

He can not believe that the errors are 
placed on record by inspiration, but is com- 
pelled to attribute them to human infirmity. 
On the other hand, he finds prophets and 
apostles claiming inspiration, or at least reve- 
lation, and he is in no wise disposed to deny 
their claim. He further asserts that the Bible 
nowhere gives us an exact account of the na- 
ture, degree, or extent of inspiration; and that 
all these have been fixed by uninspired men. 
Hence he maintains the right to examine the 



INSPIRA TION. 203 

phenomena which the Bible presents, and to 
reach conclusions divergent from those of his 
uninspired predecessors or contemporaries. 
The substance of the conclusions of the 
critics is that inspiration, like inerrancy, can 
only be predicated of those parts of the Bible 
which have to do with faith and practice. 
They do not say nor intimate that other por- 
tions of the Bible contain no truth. On the 
contrary, they assert that these parts manifest 
the greatest care to state things as they are, 
and with a very high degree of success. 

The great purpose of inspiration undoubt- 
edly was to secure to the word of the inspired 
speaker or writer unquestioned authority. It 
is the doctrine of " The Teaching of the 
Twelve Apostles " (chap, xi) that one may 
not question the accuracy of the utterances of 
one who spoke under the influence of the 
Prophetic Spirit. But the question whether 
any one should be acknowledged as a prophet 
still remained open. John exhorts his readers 
to " try the spirits whether they are of God: 
because many false prophets have gone out 
into the world." And then he makes the test 



204 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 

of their true inspiration, conformity in doctrine 
with his teachings concerning Jesus Christ, 
(i John iv, 1-3.) Paul applies a similar test 
to the professed prophets of his time. (Gal. 
i, 8, 9.) The assumption both of John and 
Paul is, that inspiration has to do with the 
gospel of Jesus Christ, and with nothing else. 
They based the proof that any one possessed 
prophetic gifts upon the contents of their gos- 
pel teachings, not upon the accuracy of their 
historical utterances. 

If, then, we will not discredit the ascer- 
tained truth of the Bible because errors are 
supposed also to be found there, neither must 
we reject the inspiration of some parts, be- 
cause other parts are held to be uninspired. 
And Paul and John, while apparently limiting 
the results of prophetic inspiration in their 
day to gospel questions, at the same time give 
us a criterion by which to judge of the in- 
spiration of any document. If it contradicts 
the gospel, it is not inspired. And if those 
to whom Paul and John wrote could apply 
this test, so can we; for it is not to be sup- 
posed that they possessed the gift of the dis- 



INSPIRATION. 205 

cerning of spirits any more than we do. Let 
it be observed that we are not arguing in 
favor of this partial inspiration of the Scrip- 
tures, but that we are trying to show that we 
need not reject inspiration entirely if the 
critics rob us of belief in the inspiration of all 
parts of the Bible. The inspiration of those 
portions of the Bible which have to do with 
our faith and practice remains untouched, and 
it assures us of the authority of those precious 
treasures. 

It will be interesting to discover what the 
great Creeds have to say upon this phase of 
the controversy. The first and second Hel- 
vetic Confessions seem to forbid such a con- 
struction of inspiration as the conservative 
critics give us. This is probably true also of 
the Irish Articles of Religion of 161 5, and 
certainly of the Creed of the New Hampshire 
Baptists of 1833, and of the Evangelical Free 
Church of Geneva of 1848. On the other hand, 
while they do not teach such a distinction as 
to inspiration, there is nothing to forbid it in 
the French Confession of 1559, the Belgic of 
1561 (revised in 1619), the Scotch of 1560, the 



206 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 

Thirty-nine Articles of Religion of the Church 
of England, and the Articles of Religion of 
the Methodist Episcopal Church. 

The language of the Westminster Confes- 
sion is such as to admit of doubt. Yet we are 
inclined to the opinion that it would not for- 
bid the view of inspiration held by the con- 
' servative critic. In all fairness it ought to be 
said that while not expressly forbidden by 
anything in the above-named creeds, their 
framers probably held to the view of the ultra- 
traditionalist. If they were living now, how- 
ever, and were to write in the light of the 
discussions of the present and recent past, it 
is impossible to say where they would range 
themselves. The preponderance of evidence 
from the Creeds is apparently on the side of 
the traditionalists as regards inspiration ; but 
it must be borne also in mind that the ques- 
tions to be settled then were entirely different 
from those now engaging the Protestant world. 



date and authorship. 207 

§ 49. Date and Authorship of the Books 
of the Bible. 

It would seem at first sight as though it 
could make no difference who wrote the books 
of the Bible, nor when they were written, if 
they were divinely inspired. What need has 
one to be an eyewitness of events if he can se- 
cure perfect knowledge of them through inspi- 
ration ? So that on the theory of the complete 
inspiration of every part of the sacred Scrip- 
tures, neither the date nor the authorship of 
the Biblical books would have any effect upon 
their authority. 

Nevertheless, it is just here that conserva- 
tive criticism approaches nearest to tradition- 
alism ; and many a critic who willingly yields 
the doctrines of inerrancy and of the plenary 
inspiration of all parts of the Bible, is exceed- 
ingly chary of admitting the composition of a 
book at a later date than that in which its 
supposed author lived. The reason is not far 
to seek. The testimony of an eyewitness is 
all the more important in the absence of in- 
spiration. Besides, some of the books of the 



208 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 

Bible profess to have been written by certain 
well-known characters. If they were not 
written by these men, they are forgeries. 
Now, the radical critics remind us that men of 
sincere piety did in those days sometimes 
write religious books for the edification of the 
people, and attach the names of Jewish or 
Christian celebrities to them to give them 
authority. This may be admitted. The end 
was supposed to justify the means. What 
they wrote was important truth ; but the peo- 
ple would not bow to the authority of the real 
authors. In order to benefit their readers, 
they committed pious frauds by attaching the 
names of others of greater repute than them- 
selves. 

Thus the critics seek to show that, forgers 
though they were, these writers committed no 
conscious wrong. In this way it is indeed 
possible to overcome the old argument that a 
man who would forge a literary work could 
not inculcate such pure doctrines. Arguments 
contrary to the supposition of forgery throng 
upon us. The men who could write such 
works as those of our canonical Scriptures 



DATE AND AUTHORSHIP. 209 

1 mst have been men who needed not to bol- 
s.er up their writings with names of men of 
t ie past. Then, too, the radical critics have 
carried the matter so far that both the Old and 
I 'ew Testaments are, according to their theo- 
ries, largely made up of forgeries. Conserva- 
tive critics do not see how such a wholesale 
system of forgery can lay claim to be the 
Word of God. Surely God was not shut up 
to such a method of revelation. The editing 
i nd re-editing of some of these books they 
nay admit. Interpolations need not be de- 
nied. One may even allow that documents 
originally separate, one or more of them by 
unknown authors, might in the course of time 
come to be regarded as the production of one 
man, as is supposed to be the case with the 
Psalms and Isaiah. But even this hypothesis, 
vvhen employed to explain so many portions of 
the Bible, not only fails to secure the consent 
of the judgment, it produces the feeling that 
our confidence in the Bible must be given up 
if these things are true to the extent which 
radical critics affirm. Hence the tendency on 

the part of conservative critics to reduce the 

14 



2IO THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 

number of such instances to the minimum. 
All such suppositions detract from the dignity 
of the Bible, and should not be lightly ac- 
cepted. It is so exceedingly improbable that 
God would employ such methods of revela- 
tion to such an extent that most men would 
be compelled, if they accept the critical re- 
sults as facts, to yield their belief in the Di- 
vine origin of the Book. 

Those who hold to the traditional view of 
the date and authorship of the books of the 
Old Testament sustain themselves iii their 
belief by the attestations given in the New 
Testament. We may pass by what all others— 
except our Lord — say of the Old Testament. 
Many tolerably conservative critics are in- 
clined to believe that when Jesus refers to 
Isaiah, or to David, or to Moses, he does not 
thereby mean to set his seal upon their author- 
ship of the books generally in his day attrib- 
uted to them. One of the most offensive 
forms of this theory is that which maintains 
that Jesus was ignorant of the real authors, 
but supposed, with his fellow-countrymen, that 
their reputed were their real authors. Now, 



DATE AND AUTHORSHIP. 211 

apart from the doctrine of the omniscience of 
Jesus, such a supposition is a blow at his rep- 
utation for superior religious knowledge. In 
everything else he had an insight into the 
facts deeper than his contemporaries. But 
here he is represented as being as ignorant as 
they. The theory in this form is incompatible 
with faith in Christ as we conceive it in the 
orthodox Churches of to-day. The doctrine 
that he did not attest the authorship of the Old 
Testament books may be tolerated ; but not 
the argument just mentioned in support of it. 
But some who hold that he did not attest 
the authorship of the Old Testament explain 
his utterances on the supposition that he knew 
that Moses did not write the Pentateuch, nor 
David the Psalms, nor Isaiah the last twenty- 
seven chapters of Isaiah, but that, knowing 
these things, he accommodated his speech to 
their belief. It is true that one may some- 
times, without mentioning it, doubt the prem- 
ises of a speaker, yet for the sake of argument, 
and to prevent diversion or digression from the 
main point, assume them. But here again the 
frequency of it is the main obstacle to its ac- 



212 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 

ceptance. It is in plain contrast to the usual 
frankness of Jesus, and no pedagogical interest 
could demand such a sacrifice of his own be- 
lief and reserve of the truth. The theory 
does not attribute to Jesus any deception; but 
it presupposes a capability of knowing facts of 
importance, and yet of systematically with- 
holding them from his hearers. It is there- 
fore as much of a reflection upon his charac- 
ter as the former upon his intelligence, and is 
consequently even more objectionable. 

The supposition that Christ's utterances 
were not meant for attestations of the author- 
ship of the Old Testament books is capable 
of support in a manner entirely unobjection- 
able. When he referred to these books, it 
was the contents themselves, and not the 
authors, upon which the emphasis was laid. 
He may be supposed to have employed me- 
tonymy, to have spoken of a work by the 
name of its reputed author. This would not 
imply either ignorance of the facts nor a 
weak yielding through three years of public 
teaching to the views of his hearers. Put in 
this form, it would not be inimical to our 



DATE AND AUTHORSHIP. 213 

faith. But it would still be a debatable ques- 
tion whether all the references of our Lord to 
Old Testament books will admit of such an 
explanation. And it would also be a question 
whether Christ, who exposed so many Jewish 
errors, would have left this one untouched. 
For if Moses did not write the Pentateuch, 
nor Joshua the book of that name, nor David 
a large part of the Psalms, nor Solomon any 
of the three books ordinarily attributed to 
him, nor Isaiah the last thirty-one chapters 
of Isaiah, nor Jeremiah the Lamentations, 
nor Daniel the book which bears his name, 
etc. ; and if the history of Israel is so entirely 
different from that which the Old Testament 
represents it, as the critics would have us be- 
lieve, — then the Jews of Christ's day labored 
under a deception so broad, and an illusion so 
profound, that we can scarcely imagine Jesus 
to have known the facts and yet to have said 
nothing whatever about them. Of course it 
is possible; and our province here is not to 
discuss the merits of the case. Our interest 
is to discover whether the opinions of the 
critics are consistent with the existence of 



214 THE HIGHER CRITICISM. 

our faith. The general conclusion reached 
is, that some modification of our accepted 
opinions concerning the inerrancy and inspi- 
ration of the Scriptures, and of the date and 
authorship of the Old Testament books, would 
be compatible with everything vitally con- 
nected with our holy religion. But such 
modifications must not be proposed upon 
purely literary considerations, nor may they 
be carried to the extent to which many critics 
would carry them. There is no danger to 
the truth; but to the one who misses the 
truth there is danger. Christian truth makes 
Christ not merely the founder of our religion, 
but the object of our love and the source of 
our life. Christianity will be destroyed by 
whatever robs us of this. 



THE END. 



X^xt* xfx '\t> xjy ajy xV xj>- -A.fx -ky- *j>- xV xjy xfx xjx xV xfxxfx^ 

^j^-n^ri.frSfi.-rSri.rriTi JTSn n^i r^ r^.n^.fT^.r^.n ^n r^fi n ^n r^ .n£ri'^ 

yC ?jx7jx yjxxjx yjx xjxx jxx jx 7jx xjxyjxyjxT jx7 ^jxxjxxixx jx >^ 
THE WORKS OF 

BISHOP STEPHEN M. MERRILL, D.D.,LL.D, 

» 

Aspects of Christian Experience. 

i6mo. Cloth. 2gj pages, go cents. 

"God works in us that we may have a good will, and with us 
when we have a good will, and in all his inworking he respects 
the nature of the soul, with its attributes of rationality and moral 
freedom. The divine agency neither overpowers nor violates the 
human agency." — Fix tract. 

The design has been to group the substantial doctrines of 
Christianity with reference to Christian experience in such a way 
as to give to each its appropriate place and importance, without 
exalting one at the expense of the other. -Preface. 

Christian Baptism. Its Subjects and Mode. 
j6mo. Cloth, j 10 pages, go cents. 

" The Gospel comes to all, in every age, in every condition, in 
the polar snows or the burning sands, in arid wastes or mountain 
fastnesses, in palace or hospital, in the air of freedom or within 
prison walls; and it comes with all its comforts and helps, and in 
perfect adaptation to all. But, tested by this rule, exclusive immer- 
sion is another system." — Extract. 

I have thought that something of this character, inexpensive 
and unpretentious, ought to be offered to those who lack time or 
disposition to study more critical works, and with this view I send 
(nit these discourses, believing they Mill measurably meet a real 
want, and contribute toward the removal of the more'serious diffi- 
culties from the minds of earnest seekers after truth. — Pre/ace. 

Digest of Methodist Law ; or, Helps in the Admin- 
istration of the Discipline of the Methodist 
Episcopal Church. 

i6mo. Cloth. 2jj pages, go cents. 

"The design of all disciplinary administration should be kept 
in mind. It is the honor and purity of the Church, and the spiritual 
good of the parties concerned. It is not punishment. The Church 
has no power or mission in that direction." — Extract. 

This treatise is written and sent out with the hope that it will 
prove helpful to all who are charged with the duty of administering 
the Discipline of the Church, and especially the younger pastors. — 
Pre/ace. 

CRANSTON & CURTS, Publishers. 

CI^TCI3^T2ST^-TI, CHICA&O, ST. X.OXTIS. 



xfxxfxxVxfx xfxxfx xVxVxV x|xx|xxfxx|xxfxxfxxVxV 
^Vjx xjx x^xjfKX^xJ^x^xJfKXJ^x^xJfKXJfKXj^ xjxxjxxixx|x\ 



Works of Bishop Stephen M. Merrill, D. D., LL. D.— Continued. 



The New Testament Idea of Hell. 

1 6 mo. Cloth. 2j6 pages, go cents. 

"The clear, steady current of truth sweeps away all these 
devices of error, like drift upon the flowing- stream, leaving no 
resort for the believer in the Scriptures but to acknowledge the 
fact that the hour is coming in the which all that are in the graves 
shall hear his voice and come forth ; they that have done good unto 
the resurrection of life, and they that have done evil unto the 
resurrection of damnation.*' — Extract. 

This little book is written for readers of the English Scrip- 
tures, and not for those having access to the wide range of theo- 
logical discussions found in the ponderous works on Systematic 
Divinity, which crowd the libraries of the learned.— Pi eface. 

The Second Coming of Christ, Considered in its 
Relation to the Millennium, the Resurrection, 
and the Judgment. 

1 6 mo. Cloth. 2S2 pages, go cents. 

Hoping that it may be the means of saving some from falling 
into erratic notions, and of confirming the wavering in the truth, 
and of stirring up in others a profounder sense of accountability 
to God in a coming day, I prayerfully send this volume forth upon 
its mission, bespeaking for "it as much of candor in its perusal 
as has been observed in its preparation.— Preface. 

The Organic Union of American Methodism. 

i2mo. Cloth. 112 pages. 45 cents. 

" The subject of the future relations of the dissevered branches 
of the Methodist familv is sufficiently important to attract atten- 
tion to the utterances o'fauv one who feels moved to give expression 
to thoughts which have become convictions, especially when 
clothed in the language of moderation and sincerity."— Opening 
Paragraph. 

From the Michigan Cliristian .Advocate. 

The book will be greedily read by the large-hearted men of all 
branches of Methodism . . It is not an impromptu production, 

but the crvstallization of years of observation and thought. 






CRANSTON &, CURTS, Publishers, 

CI^CIZLTOiT-a-'XI, C"2=HC-^-<3-0, SO?. LOT7IS. 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: May 2005 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 
111 The 
Cranberry Townsho. PA I6O66 



fa 

fit 



